Skip to main content

tv   Politics Public Policy Today  CSPAN  June 7, 2013 10:30pm-6:01am EDT

10:30 pm
how did syria go from one of the any arab uprising that started with peaceful protests then to an uprising then a civil war and conbordering on a broader flict. the pace and the velocity of events is unmatched, certainly by anything i've seen. throughout all of this, there has been three constants that i would argue are responsible for how syria got to where they are today. the first, from the beginning the syrian regime has viewed protests, although peaceful as a threat. as a result, they respond to those protestifies with now
10:31 pm
brutal force. they have not been open to any sort of reform, nor i do believe this regime is -- at least the hard core center to any negotiated exit. second condition that is pertained from the beginning, the syrian opposition has been divided. it has been in a state of disarray. arguably the political opposition in area today is in a greater sense of disarray than it has been. they have been unable to come around a vision of what a will look like. that's been a significant, i
10:32 pm
would say failing of the opposition. in addition, we have even the current opposition as it is nfigured risen by personal rivalries, ideology differences, those on in inside, those on the ground, and so forth. third, the international community has been essentially at a stalemate from the beginning, unable to forge a consensus on how to handle the question on syria. in particular, i think at the top of this is enduring differences between the united states and russia. also differences in the region between saudi arabia, qatar, and supporters of the opposition and iran as the ally of the regime on the other. s a result, the u.n. has been,
10:33 pm
unfortunately, essentially ineffective. certainly at the level of the security council on how to deal with syria. it is these facters that has led syria to where it is today. very briefly then i will conclude. in terms of u.s. policy, it has been marked by the statement made by president obama in august of 2011 that assad must step aside. that has been and continues to be the u.s. position on syria. its policies toward syria have been largely focused on diplomatic isolation of the regime, economic sanctions, assistance to the opposition in terms of both trying to help bridge some of these gaps that i mentioned, as well as training and technical assistance to those elements of the opposition or those on the ground who are already involved in some level
10:34 pm
of government on levels beyond the regime control. the u.s. has been a huge provider of humanitarian assistance. the united states is the largest provider of humanitarian assistance to syrian refugees. but as many in the room probably know, the united states is also approached syria with a great degree of caution when it comes to the question of any sort of military intervention. whether it is arming the rebels or the question of establishing a no-fly zone or targeting military strikes. all of these military options, i think my colleague will be talk about, the u.s. has opted at this point not to pursue those. i think it's in large part because of the many factors that we can talk about that certainly
10:35 pm
the degree to which the situation in syria is chaotic and becoming more so. i think some very serious questions, about whether military intervention would, in exaft bait the conflict on the ground. we're engaged in active discussions with the russians to geneva estart the process. the next time u.s. and russia to meet is june 25, no specific date has been set yet. the hope is july. but that has already been
10:36 pm
delayed as a result of the lingering differences. at this point, that approach given all the various risks and difficulties and not least concerns about civilian protection, i think in my ways for syria the answer ultimately is going to have to be a diplomatic solution and i will . ave it at that >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm honored to be here. i've been traveling into syria for pretty much two years. entry it has been legal into the country because we feel that reporting on events north of the country in territory that was contested was important for
10:37 pm
us to do and that's why we took the decision to do that. i would like to talk a little bit about how the situation on the ground has evolved, how i see it. the bbc is not a policy make earn i don't have my own opinions. what i can answer is questions about the reality on the ground. it strikes me that a lot of policy, a lot of decisions that are taken are not necessarily as well-informed by the true story on the ground. t is very complex picture. our first crossing into syria was july 2011. at that point the entire north of the country was exroled by the government, the government controlled all the crossings and what you saw was this protest ovement that was in a state of
10:38 pm
evolution. etty much splintered, local, based around families. what we've seen over the last earlier and a half how that has evolved. we've read stories and i want to talk a what we actually see on the ground. so this time last year, the opposition started to form around larger groups. and nt time with a group t sounds like it is possibly islamic but it wasn't. it was a secular movement. these people were mechanics and chefs. these were amateurs, armed with old rifles trying to work out how to mount a campaign. at that point already, the outside world was taking an
10:39 pm
interest, people were supplying weapon, larger forces were coming to play. at that point, when the syrian government talked about foreign terrorists being inside the country, largely speaking it wasn't true. i remember this time last year sitting with a group of rebels in the north of the country. again, civilians. most of them were sunnis but they preached the language of inclusivety. that part isn't as mixed as other parts. that is more problematic. i know parts of the conflict have evolved into a struggle but i don't believe it is entirely defined by sectarian differences and it doesn't have to be that
10:40 pm
way. as the rebel commander sat there, dressed in black, had a serious beard and the rest of them joked with this guy, he was the taliban. they thought this was funny but he was the exception to the rule. you didn't see people like that. you didn't see people who were committed to the cause. that has completely changed inside syria. south of did recently e city, in order to get to parts that we wanted to report on involved getting a permission slip from a court inside the ity. so what the syrian government has been saying might not be true what it started off with t it has been in some ways a
10:41 pm
self-fulfilling froffcy. ny of the fears have come to light. the conflict has spread. 9,000 . had figures of syrians dead and in one year it is more like 90,000. it is radicalized and if there ever was a possibility of a clear initiative that possibly could bring a swift tend to the conflict, i don't see it now. it doesn't mean it is a lost cause and i don't think anyone should view it as one. it is as complex and messy as you can imagine. i remember being in iraq in 2006, that the time people were talking about the division of the country. i believe vice president biden
10:42 pm
at that point had a plan that talked about splitting iraq into three states to try to reduce the violence. lebanon, even if n its darkest hour and then after the war with israel and it was wrapped by political upheevel it did not go that aval it did not go far. i don't think it is a done deal at the moment. so that end, i would urge an international policymakers to be involved. i think it is worthying about the armed opposition as two groupings and it is changing all the time. this is not a static situation. people talk about a stalemate. we're very impatient and media is the worst.
10:43 pm
if people don't change onen the ground in two months, then nothing is happening, nobody is winning the battle. eve seen syrian governments have the upper hand in the south of the country and re-establish control south of damascus. we know there has been fighting near the israeli border, i believe they are taking ban that border in the last 24 hours. it is not a straight line. this time last year, the armed opposition essentially controlled a few villages around the north of the country. i had no real presence south of that. -- ng into da mass us damascus. it has been supported and sustained by weapons coming in from outside the country.
10:44 pm
moasts where are they coming from? they come from the gulf. they come from supporters in kuwait, qatar, saudi arabia, elsewhere in the islamic world. turkish intelligence is very effective and they are capable of closing the border if they choose to do so. for a long period the rebels were not able to get weapons but that changed last year. they contention is they are given enough to fight and die but not enough to win. that is the reality on the ground. most of the heavy weapons they have are weapons they have seized from government bases they have managed to overrun. , saw that on our last trip essentially firing rockets that were taken from one military base on to another syrian
10:45 pm
government base. so the armed opposition has evolved. two broad groupings, there are those that we can call islamists, which ranges from the hardline elements, those who sworn allegiance to al qaeda. there are those who are more towards the secular side i don't think there are many secularrists left. they move from one group to another, which is why we should never see it as a static situation. these groups have been evolving all the time. this time last year, it was not really a force. they carried out deadly bombings and everyone feared this was al qaeda getting involved in syria. but the truth was, they had no power, they had little following, it was impossible to
10:46 pm
establish where they were. a , they are essentially militant islamic organization. they are not jihads. they have a certain vision for a hardline islamic state inside syria but they do not see the struggle as a wide regional struggle. this is what people tell you. we also know that many of the people who follow these group, follow them because that is where the focus of attention is. they are the groups who have the money, they are able to pay fighters. most of the people who pick up weapons have not worked in syria for at least 18 months. many of them fighting has been the only way of managing to earn a living and they will probably move from group to group
10:47 pm
depending on which group is getting money, which group is getting resources. for western policymakers is something to bear in mind. so i see any evolution over the last 12 months. the armed opposition control pretty much of northern syria, e northern prove venses -- provinces. ethnically it is muslim and sunni. that does not mean there aren't exceptions. so things have evolved but they have got on the a point where you feel the armed opposition is probably incapable of advancing much further than it actually has. it is relied on audacity, it has relied on gorilla warfare to
10:48 pm
achieve what has done. and ga elied on david lie yath tackics. deal with ble to military. if you put the two together, there is a potential potent force there. i just like to talk a humanitarian situation on the ground. on our first trip over was to visit people who were displaced, living in tents and woods right on the border. you can see the road in turkey on the other side are the bushes and the barbed wire. since then it is just spiraled out of control. everywhere you travel there are
10:49 pm
duplicated displaced families living in greenhouses, living in caves. we did one story and we were shown what was essentially an old roman tomb where a family was being sheltered. this is an area that was between the armed opposition and the government. my camera man who is here went down into it and discovered five, six small boys in the dark on their own. their mother went out to get food and they were waiting for take them n and to out. nobody knew they were there. the humanitarian situation is a crisis. it is as bad as i've ever seen it anywhere. i think it's probably compareable to afghanistan during the civil war.
10:50 pm
people are relying on handouts, i have no doubt foreign aid is making its way in. there is no perception on the ground that the outside world has done anything at all. people receive humanitarian aid, fighters get some weapons, but there is a general sense inside syria they have been abandoned by the outside world. people still to this day, ask what is the difference between a syrian and the libyan? it sounds like a bad joke, there is no answer. they don't see why the libyan's were assisteded in a way they haven't been. most of them are victims of a war they didn't chose. whatever their side, whatever their ethnicity, whatever their religion, they are the ones that pay the price because when the armed opposition moves into the area then the government esponds and the bombing is
10:51 pm
indiscriminate in the. you can't pinpoint attacks without advanced technology on the ground, which they don't use. therefore, that is why you have so many killed from 9,000 this time last year to probably about 90,000 this year. so it is a gloomy picture. i'm happy to take your questions and thank you for listening to me. >> thank you. ext. >> thank you. i should start with saying my remark do not reflect the blessings of the department of the defense or the united states government. i imagine that the professor will say something similar. i'm not speaking to -- for the defendant on defense. today, i wish to address two topics, first is the role of the
10:52 pm
unite nations and the implications ofs the no-fly zone. every american president prefers to take military action with allies, even the invasion that is forgotten, was part of a coalition organization with resources.ributing this urge is particular strong for democrats. the gold standard is a blessing by the united nations. since the fall of the berlin wall there has been two u.s. military actions that did not have some sort of u.n. sanction or claimed sanction. one was co-sew vow and the other with -- kosovo and the other was iraq. we know what happened with iraq.
10:53 pm
among the problems in kosovo was the role played by russia that determined to thwart what it saw a u.s. political grab. pollle,st week's gallop 68% of americans did not support military action. compounding this problem is an uncertain nation if assad were to be replaced. the leaders of the armed opposition within syria are uncertain at best and extremely shadey at worst. a u.s. mandate is the minimum requirement to begin military action in syria. this will not happen as long as the chinese and the russians
10:54 pm
oppose a mandate. ey feel they were hoodwinked first. ya was the experience of libya has informed and to a great extend shaped the inaction on syria. even with the new powers team in place, it would suggest unless there is a disaster occurring, 'm talking something along the massacres the u.s. will probably not take action without some sort of sanction. that's my points on the u.n. i draw that from my experience in peace keeping as secretary of defense. my second point concerneds the nature of a no-fly zone. i'm not an air defense artillery man but i served in special
10:55 pm
operations forces. soldiers who work with big equipment they call people like me crunches because that's the sound we make when you run over us. i'm low-tech i was a guest at a major weapons exhibition and they were showing these laser weapons and they said what are you you looking for and i said i want wool socks that don't have a crease across the toe. the beauty of being an academic you can pladge rise anything as long as you acknowledge it. you can hear the panel on the u.s. institute of peace on their website and the remarks. i should also point out my
10:56 pm
colleague has written on this subject, very informative if you go the website you can link to hat. so let me make a few quick points. he first, a no-fly zone is a yufenifplg for war. it is an act of war and it will kill people and destroy things. some to feel killing and destruction will harm things we don't want to harm. a dominant narrative becomes yankee inspired death and destruction. let us discuss this issue without misconceptions. war even in an age of push-button warfare is exactly what general sherman said it was. there is considerably room in what a no-fly zone is.
10:57 pm
it is shaped by the decade long operations over northern and southern iraq but a clever staff officer could propose courses of actions which would not involve circling aircraft over damascus and destruction of every missile and runway. my third point is a no-fly zone would require a base somewhere close by. these bases would probably come with a cost. turkey is the only credible base but they have issues of their own. they might insist on conditions that the u.s. will reject. our relationship with turkey is more transactional than it was in the mid 1980's. we can operate from more remote locations but this requires staging of expensive and scare military assets. particularly tankers and
10:58 pm
aircraft carriers, which are still in demand in the gulf and deal with the next act that if ongoing freak show, which is north korea. thank you. you're kind. geography matters. syria is not libya. in libya most of the targets ere on a flat, lightly populated strip. syria is flying over mountains. the calculations involved in onducting aerial missions over syria are much more complicated. modern himint, is that shoot his plane be shot down. any manned air activity has the
10:59 pm
potential for ground combat. we should understand the implications of what is being proposed. airplanes get shot down. my study of history suggest whatever type of no-fly zone is implemented whenever satisfies those who seek a no-fly zone. we'll hear about helicopters. arehe helicopters destroyed, most of the killing is being conducted by indirect fire, as we saw in sarajevo. for not blame insurgents their fight.
11:00 pm
they are in a struggle for the death. wouldmoval of assad diminish the demand for intervention. i've not discussed other technical matters. if you are burning to hear that, i would be delighted to take a question. thank you and a welcome your questions. [applause] >> thank you, dave. miss waxman. >> thank you, dr. anthony for inviting us here today. the conflict in syria has resulted in the largest humanitarian emergency in history. ian talked about the massive
11:01 pm
scale of displacement inside the country. more than 4 million people are displaced internally. havethan 1.5 million sought refuge in neighboring countries. the largest funding appeal ever has been launched today to respond to the crisis in the region. my organization has been working with partners to deliver vital medical aid for field hospitals and clinics. toare working inside syria deliver health care for people living on the border and provide education to children who can no longer attend school, and build safe places for traumatized syrian children.
11:02 pm
they're refugees in syria and iraq and reaching out to those who are suffering the most. we have spent more than $50 million on aid to syria supported by the u.s. and the u.k. and from private donations. i want to focus on three issues. what the international community needs to do to get aid inside syria. how we can help refugees realized their rights and protect them from the conflict. committeeational needs to increase support inside syria. the u.s. and other donors have
11:03 pm
been generous humanitarian needs outstripped the support provided. andamerican government american people deserve enormous credit for stepping in early and at a scale in an unprecedented assistance. the united states is the largest donor and it can claim a greater role as a donor and as a leverager of assistance. equally important is that aid needs to flow through a diversity of channels. the international community should continue to explore to reach those across borders from neighboring countries, across the conflict lines inside syria.
11:04 pm
more aid needs to flow directly through syrian partners, especially those that are properly supported. inre needs assistance building their core capabilities. the three key areas of need continue to be food, health care, and fuel. doctors have been targeted systematically. now that summer has provided, emergency water and sanitation is essentials. the international community east to ensure that aid is not conflated with political objectives. assistance should be provided for the purpose of alleviating
11:05 pm
the suffering based on need. humanitarian action is about saving lives. conflating political aid jeopardize his humanitarian aid workers and risk diverting insufficient resources from reaching syrian's most in need of help. formal refugee camps continued to garner most attention and resources. that is not where most syrian refugees are living. more than 70% are living in rural areas across the northeast. if they have family and they live with them. in order to survive, refugees sparse sending their children to work and exchanging sex for
11:06 pm
basic goods. tension between the refugees communities are rising. these dynamics are clear today in lebanon. 100% of refugees live in villages across the country. many are living in settlements that are spontaneously emerging. led a non offered their borders to half a million refugees -- lebanon opened their borders to half a million refugees. the u.n. appeal today requests the largest amount for lebanon.
11:07 pm
this is a clear acknowledgment a about this massive influx of people. rescueernational committee believes we should provide the refugees from syria. we need to increase the quality of services provided to most refugee groups, specifically woman and non registered refugees. we need to insure that traditional development dollars buy the refugee influx. it may be months or years before displaced syrians can
11:08 pm
return home to destroyed homes and communities. planning about the future of syria is to be addressed on a multiple range of issues. it is essential that border countries remain and keep their borders open to provide a safe haven. they may sound appealing, there is a poor record in practice it will create a false sense of security for civilians and displaced persons inside syria. politicalke a solution to end the way inside
11:09 pm
of syria in order to protect the syrian people. i appreciate the opportunity to join you today and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, sharon. our last speaker before open the floor to questions is paul sullivan. >> a lot territory has been covered. i'll have to give the usual caveats. these are my opinions alone and do not represent any institution, i may be involved with. now i might just get myself into trouble. this could be obama's rwanda. how many people have died? this is not slow motion.
11:10 pm
from 2000 to 90000 in one year? this is far from slow-motion. whenad and my heart hurts i think about syria. it is so complicated. this could turn into a maelstrom. no kidding. look at the neighborhood -- israel, bahrain, iraq. there was a bahrainy killed. iran. the port has kept this going some time.
11:11 pm
syria has its own internal maelstrom. thinking as a strategic person, you know gets to me? this right here gets to me. the children in syria. if you did not read this report yet, read it. i think of myself as often a tough guy. i work with the military. i read some of the stuff and i held my head in my hands and i wept. this is what is coming here. the shattering of the society. the shattering of infrastructure. this is a dangerous situation. how do we get from here to
11:12 pm
there. $500 billion for an appeal. how does $500 billion sound? we have to figure out how preferred outcomes in the short term and the long term. i don't think that thinking has even started for what is needed to be done. maybe the first start would get to what miss waxman was saying. how angry these children are going to bay and how this will come back at us. not just the united states but the neighborhood and possibly the world. have food, have clinics.
11:13 pm
take care of the orphans. maybe bring some of them to this country. this is a strategic thinking and just being human. do well by doing good. too well by doing good. we can talk about all the big theories and political science. it all boils down to the people on the ground that ian and others have talked about. this is about people. the no-fly zone was talked about by david. this was mentioned as a possibility. no-fly zones are messy. people die. we can use soft power and hard power but it is probably too late and it will probably be too little.
11:14 pm
this could have been dealt with months ago. it was not. it is getting worse. it is pulling in the rest of the region into the whirlpool of syria. look what is happening in iraq and on the border with israel. you can look of this as a 3d spiderweb with intrigue. every time you change something, everything else changes. there is a military term for this, complex and ambiguous. washington is not good with any of those. could we build a coalition to work on this?
11:15 pm
i doubt that right now. and the maelstrom is coming. the timidity is astonishing. it is all over the place. so what is the option? give or a chance? -- give war a chance? we had a senior sunni official saying, it is and effective jihad for hezbollah. the russians are there. an iranian general was killed in syria. upy are sending material there. it is becoming out of control.
11:16 pm
the sunni-shia is split. to differences are of value all that -- are avail to all of that. thisore a situation like continues, the more nihilism you will have. it is far more difficult when their lives are shattered. the harsh winds of the syrian nostrum could have global defects in oil and other and other strategic issues.
11:17 pm
batten down the hatches. get out the sea anchors. here we go. [applause] >> thank you, paul. it is my privilege to ask questions of the presenters from the carts filled with questions that have been submitted. mona, two for you. i will try to have two for the others. will necessitate the your answers be shorter. that might be the case elsewhere if we had a longer time. tried to keep your responses to three minutes or something of that nature. mona, two questions.
11:18 pm
how does iran's involvement with hezbollah affect the obama administration paul's political calculus? in what ways with the current israeli government if federal prefer the assad regime to remain in power or deal with whatever regime rises to replace it? >> thank you. on iran, i think their involvement makes the administration's cackle is more complicated. just to take a step back and look get iran's role and hezbollah. they provide financing and weapons and advice. they have some commanders on the ground.
11:19 pm
you now have a deepening involvement by hezbollah. there are perhaps thousands of hezbollah fighters on the operating in syria. in terms of political calculus, we have is more complicated situation. i think it underscores iran's ability to play a key role. iran and hezbollah have maybe a strategic decision to go all in. they view this as an existential battle. there will be persistent adversaries in this. i think ultimately we need to consider iran's role in this, particularly with diplomatic
11:20 pm
solutions. the i would argue holds power to play a real spoiler. on some level at the countless has to take on board iran's role and perhaps how to counter them. in terms of israel, i would not pretend to have insight on to what their preferences are. israel new line israel is viewing understandably what is happening in syria with increasing alarm. from tel aviv's perspective, to take hard to see any good outcome in syria. they are very much in the mode in establishing what their key
11:21 pm
interests are and laying out clear redlines with the people and borders. the third goal is preventing the transfer of strategic weapons. i think they will do what they deem necessary in pursuit of those goals. >> thank you, mona. these questions are for ian. given your recent experiences syria, might you comment on degree to which american and/or other intervention thus helped more or hurt more. how sustainable is the possible reality of a state spending
11:22 pm
damascus, tartous and southwest quolms. how sustainable d.c. that has now come? --how sustainable do you see that has now come? if the regime prevails. ian? >> thank you very much. i will try to keep my answers brief. degreequestion of the the u.s. has helped or hurt. the perception on the ground, very few people believe there's been any intervention. sharon talked about the
11:23 pm
humanitarian aid. much has been delivered on the ground and see that happening. a sack of flour appears in the village. they go home and make bread. i would probably argue the message is not getting through at the moment. intervention militarily, has it helped or hurt? let's be honest here. without weapons, people cannot fight. the delivery of arms are tools for the defense originally and have become tools of offense. it has led to greater killing. the supply of weapons to the rebels has led to this massive loss of life over the last 12
11:24 pm
months. i don't pretend to know what the answer is in syria. the only thing guaranteed is that more people will die and the majority will be civilians. the idea of an allied state. many people talk about this. the provinces of tartous are as homogenous as people like to think. people think perhaps this is the government's fallback plan. i think it would be incredibly difficult to pull off. it is hard to imagine that would be a desirable outcome for anybody in the country. six character -- sectarianism in syria does exist.
11:25 pm
they do not have to have the day and it doesn't have to be inevitable. a highly fanciful idea. creston something similar to that if it is sustained by an outside power. we've had some contact with the kurds. governve managed to themselves and some are working with the rebels. some villages you travel through and they run their own village now. the have an agreement on ground. there are a lot of practical agreements that seem to fly in the face of everything you hear. for the kurds, that local agreement stands.
11:26 pm
they are allowed to run their own affairs. the rebels are non worried. how much autonomy is granted? they will demand a high degree of autonomy. >> thank you, ian. next is for dave. what can be done to prevent and or end spillover of violence into syria's neighboring states? what might change the calculus of russia or china moving to support assad to a greater degree than they already have? might any point they
11:27 pm
agree to facilitate a transition of leadership? if so, where mike that point be? in does the instability syria change israel's caucus, if all, with iran's nuclear program? >> thank you for the questions. they're all easy ones. if i could give you -- i will give the my best effort. what can be done to prevent spillover of violence? i find spillover violence to be an unhealthy metaphor. if violence occurs, somehow your sovereignty has been defiled.
11:28 pm
borders are permeable. violence in juarez, it goes from nogales and it can be restored. states realize this and they can ratchet up or ratchet it down. what we've done it in jordan -- is so the department to prepare for a key humanitarian support and i imagine any other contingency. you see the deployment of u.s. patriot battery to jordan. that is to deter any possible missile strikes. measures like that seem to be the effective ones.
11:29 pm
if you look at iraq. rollins could spill over into our racked -- violence could spill over into iraq. u.s.on't have -- the border patrol does not have to intercept every single illegal alien the moment they crossed the border. they can stand back 40 or 50 miles and deal with the problem. the concept itself is relatively on helpful. you have to think h. each state as an independent element and say, what are the elements of stability and address those elements. will lead to a change of leadership in china or russia? lead is falling russia's -- china is a following russia's lead.
11:30 pm
let's just look russia. i think russia feels humiliated. they were misled over libya. what will be our place in the world if we give up a naval base? there needs to be a graceful transition. there cannot be a win-loss. there has to be a win-win. i look at human rights, which are a motivating factor. a big issue is the idea of impunity. it is possible that assad will remain in power or that he will meet the same end that gaddafi did. "look, your client, he will a graceful easement from
11:31 pm
power." he might wind up in moscow. bashar al-assad and his wife are graduates of the university of london. columnse great supporting people they do not like. that would run counter to the idea that people commit student rights violations would be punished. instability in syria and israel. if all were an israeli leader, i would prefer a centralized where there are discreet
11:32 pm
buttons that i can push work their institutions like to take actions against and get a predictable reaction. that would be more stable for me than this maelstrom of activity. i'm sorry these are not cheerful answers. this is the truth as i see it. >> sharon, here are two for you. what is the use of chemical weapons in chemical constitute a "red line" all the deaths of tens of civilians has not thought to the same? same how do syrians view this distinction of what is acceptable by the syrian
11:33 pm
government? and further on that, with regard to iraq, is not the case that syrian took in 1.3 million iraqis in the early years of the occupation and invasion. the u.s. until now, correct me if i'm wrong, has yet to allow one as many as 30,000 iraqis, many of whom have put their lives on the line for the united states as translators, drivers, integrators -- interrogators and the like. how has assad been informed? what lessons might assad have
11:34 pm
learned to of him to remain in power? carefulve to tread a line in not answering political questions. on the question about iraq, it is true that many iraqis fled the violence in iraq during the war and found safe haven in syria. many are now going back to iraq. many iraqis were resettled as translators and others who work for the american government. that program continues.
11:35 pm
the united states has resettled tens of thousands of iraqis and will continue to do so in the future. we have not yet reached a point where a massive resettlement program has been instituted. there is some small-scale resettlement and that is an area in which the international community needs to plan for in the future, should this conflict persist. in terms of your question about targeting of civilians. our -- we don't have faith redline on chemical weapons. our view is that the governments should not target civilians, period. the civilians must have the ability to flee and seek safe haven in neighboring countries. we want to make sure the civilians are targeted or feel
11:36 pm
persecution can find safe haven outside of the war zone. your third question -- was about assad? >> the lessons from libya and egypt, to what degree if that'll have they informed assad in terms of perhaps what he might be able to succeed in getting away with by remaining in power? >> we are not in opposition to analyze lessons learned from any government action. thatour position is regardless of the actions of any government, civilians ought not to be targeted and should have the ability to flee and find safe haven.
11:37 pm
>> paul, for you. graduallyon that was put to ian about the kurds and self governance as the rebels get the reins of power. in what ways if any of which still too soon to say how the defense in turkey impacted one way or the other on turkey's role in the humanitarian matters or security issues? >> i will take the turkey question first.
11:38 pm
i don't think it's clear what is happening with this. it was not clear when the first demonstration that began in egypt and libya and syria and other countries. it could be a simple demonstration. it could be a discussion of political differences. or it could spin it into something else. there is a huge difference between turkey and these other countries i mentioned. erdogan was elected. he is not a dictator. this is in many ways a maturation of the society in turkey. people are speaking their minds. it's happening in a small grassy space in turkey. where is this going? i do not know. turkey has a powerful military. they will be able to handle different things at the same time.
11:39 pm
if this starts to spin out of control, turkey has to start looking inwardly for awhile. it is a serious concern for them, particularly when a missile start killing turks by the border. what was the other question? >> whomever would like to respond to these questions. "the new york times" reports today of advanced israeli preparations for the possibility of a third lebanon war, which israel souces say will be a total shock and awe war.
11:40 pm
please elaborate on the role of saudi arabia and qatar in promoting one side or another of this conflict. any takers? mona? >> on the question of qatar and saudi, both countries have played a role in supporting the syrian opposition. the issue has been rather than according their support, they have instead often worked at cross purposes. jostlingtry has been for influence in the syrian theater.
11:41 pm
that has deepened those differences. there is more attempt to be to centralize channels of support and have the gulf countries work more closely in harmony. whether that will be successful remains to be seen. >> with regard to that, qatar is involved in many different countries in the region. it is a small country. i know that doesn't happen. the coordination and between them and saudi arabia is limited. the idea of another shot them war.ar -- shock and awe home anybody in this room feel comfortable with that.
11:42 pm
do you think it will end in syria? you think it will end and i iraq? -- in iraq? bad idea. a question to you regarding more recent events in turkey on the role of the play,ment that can now given what has been occurring in the last week. really defer to pull on turkey, turkey has been our host for many in this week's on the border. i will talk about the qatar-
11:43 pm
stion.que the focus of power in terms of support has shifted away from qatar. there were meetings with members of the syrian opposition. the recognized military structure seems to be empowered by the west to be a unified military figure. the opposition being very divided, a political opposition being very effective. it is those military commanders that will be the ones potentially capable of affecting any type of political impact on the ground. , awas an interesting piece
11:44 pm
specifically talking about the battle the was the first inside. western policy makers in particular in this town are trying to see that as a potentially credible way forward of unifying the armed opposition. >> for thanking the audience and speakers, i want to extend a note of appreciation to c-span for its role making decisions through a myriad of opportunities to better inform the english speaking public on these issues.
11:45 pm
is hard to recall a more complex and the relevant and urgent program and event that the national council has been privileged to the post in the nation's capital on capitol hill. the one we have been treated to the last two hours. and with a note of humility, and none of the speakers or any of those in the audience would bereft of brouwer, the void of deflects or free from flock. of blemish, devoid of defect, or free from flaw. coming. all of you for we have a lot of food for thought and a lot of thought for food.
11:46 pm
until the next event, thank you all. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> on the next washington journal, we will talk about issues important to young voters with alex smith from the college republican national committee and the director of the college democrats of america. and look at the reason the jobs report on unemployment in america the research and policy director for young invincible. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. next on c-span, president obama delivers remarks on the affordable care act and surveillance programs. in his meeting with chinese president followed by the internment ceremony for the late senator frank lautenberg.
11:47 pm
the longestingell, serving member of congress, he talks about his career in the house of representatives. next, president obama talks about implementing the affordable care act in california and encourages young americans to enroll in health care exchanges and took questions from reporters and headrest government surveillance programs. this is about 25 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. it is great to see all of you. i want to thank you everybody who is here. there is only one problem -- my remarks are not sitting here. [laughter] on a friday afternoon, things get a little challenged.
11:48 pm
i am going to have -- i am going to answer a question at the end of the remarks. i want to make sure we get the remarks out. people, -- openness. -- oh, goodness. [laughter] folks are sweating back there. [laughter] good morning, everybody. this afternoon i will be in southern california to meet with the chinese president. before i leave california, i want to take a minute to address something that is happening with affordable care act in this state. i wanted to meet with a group of people are doing important work on behalf of the california middle-class families. these leaders from california's government, the endowment, and major spanish outlets have joined together to implement the affordable care act here in
11:49 pm
california and to educate folks about how to sign up and shop for quality, affordable plans. their efforts have shown some excellent results in the biggest insurance market in the country. there are two main things that americans need to know when it comes to the affordable care act and what it means for you. if you are one of the nearly 85% of americans who already have insurance, or medicare, or medicaid, or your employer, you do not have to do a thing. you just have a wide array of new benefits, and protection, and better cost control. wills what over time improve the quality of insurance you have got. benefits like free preventive care, checkups, flu shots, country section. you are -- contraception. you are going to get things
11:50 pm
that were not provided. people up to the age of 26 to be able to stay on their parent hot insurance -- parents' insurance. cost controls like requiring insurance companies to spend at least 80% of the money you pay in premiums in your actual health care costs instead of administrative costs or ceo pay. not overhead, but that money has to be spent on you. if they do not meet that target, they will have to reimburse you. in california, we are getting reports that insurers are getting rebates to the tune of $45 million this year. already, we are seeing millions of dollars of rebate sent back to consumers by insurance companies, a consequence of this law.
11:51 pm
all of that is happening because of the affordable care act. all of this is in place right now for 85% of americans who have health insurance. by the way, all of this is what the republican party has voted 37 times to repeal at least in the house of representatives. my suggestion to them has been let's stop fighting and start work with people to make this law works the way it is supposed to. we are focused on moving forward and making sure that this law works for middle-class families. that brings me to the second xhosa people need to know, -- thing people need to know, if you are one of tens of millions of americans who do not currently have insurance, you
11:52 pm
will be able to buy polity, -- quality, affordable care like everybody else. states like california are setting up new online marketplaces where beginning on october 1 of this year, you can comparison shop an array of private health insurance plans side-by-side just like you were going online to compare cars or airline tickets. that means insurance companies will actually have to compete with each other for your business. that means new choices. right now, most states do not have a lot competition. nearly every state, sommers are covered by -- consumers are covered by only two insurance. there is no incentive to provide you with a lot of choices. the affordable care act changes all of that. beginning next year, once these marketplaces are open, most states offer more choices they
11:53 pm
do not exist today. a stone early reports, -- a based on early reports, nine in 10 americans are expected to enroll where they can choose between different insurance. here in california, 33 insurers applied to join the marketplace. california selected 13 based on affordability. 4 of which are brand-new. what is happening is through the affordable care act, we are creating these marketplaces with more competition, more choice. what happens to cost? a lot of the opponents of the act say the sky is falling, the law will fill but we would also see the sky -- the cost will skyrocket. we are seeing in the states that have committed themselves to implementing this law correctly, we are seeing the good news. competition and choice are pushing down the cost in the
11:54 pm
individual market just like the law was designed to do. the 13 insurance companies that were chosen by california have unveiled premiums that were lower than anybody expected. those who cannot afford to buy private insurance will get help reducing their out of coast from him even further - out-of- pocket premium even further. 2.6 million californians, nearly half who are latinos, will qualify for tax credits that will lower their premiums a significant amount. this is the way the law was designed to work. sayingverybody has been how it is not going to happen, it is important for us to recognize and acknowledge that
11:55 pm
this is working the way it is supposed to. we have seen similar good news not just here in california, but in oregon and washington and states that are working hard to implement this law properly. we are seeing it work for people, middle-class families. that is not to say everything is going to go perfectly right away. not when you are implementing a program this large, or will be glitches. no matter what, every single consumer will be covered by the new benefits and protections under this law. the bottom line is, you can listen to a bunch of political talk out there, negative ads geared toward the next election or you can look at what is happening in states like california right now. the fact of the matter is, not only are the 85% of people who have health insurance getting better protection and getting rebates in keeping their kids on to their the 26, if you do not have had insurance and you are trying to get it through
11:56 pm
the individual market and is too expensive and too restricted, you have these marketplaces where they will offer you a better deal. even if those lower rates and better insurance that you are getting through the marketplaces of you still cannot afford it, you will be getting tax cuts and credits through the affordable care act it will help you afford it. that is how we are going to make sure that millions of people who are getting a bad deal are finally going to get it. but, here is my final point. to take advantage of these marketplaces, folks are going to need to sign up. you can find out how to sign up at healthcare.gov or here in california, you can sign up at cacover.com. somethingre is not
11:57 pm
that should be a privilege, it should be a right. in the greatest country on earth, we have to make sure every single person that needs healthcare can get it. we have to make sure that we do it in the most efficient way possible. there are a lot of people who currently get health insurance through their employers, the 85% of people who are out there today may be saying, if this law is so great, how come my premiums still went up? part of what is going up, some employers may be shifting or higher costs or higher deductibles or higher co-pays, there may be folks who are filling increase costs but because those calls are being -- costs are being passed down to workers.
11:58 pm
for insurance companies, they are still jacking up prices unnecessarily. this does not solve the whole problem. it moves us in the right direction. it is the reason we have to keep implementing changes in how our health care system works to continually drive better efficiency, higher quality, lower costs. we are starting to see that. inflation has gone down to the lower rate in three years that we have seen in many years. we are making progress in reducing overall healthcare costs while increasing quality. we have to continue to push on that front area that is part of what we are doing. the main message i want for californians, starting on
11:59 pm
october 1, you can get a better deal. if you are a small business that is providing health insurance, you can get a better deal through these exchanges. you have to sign up. all right. thank you. i will take one question. then remember, people will have a chance to ask questions when i am with the chinese president. i do not want the whole day to be a press conference. i will take jackie holmes question. >> can you react to secret surveillance on phone and internet? can you ensure americans that your government does not have a database of personal information? >> when i came into this office, i made to commitments that are more important. number one, to keep the american people safe. number two, to uphold the constitution. that includes what i consider to be a constitutional right to
12:00 am
privacy. in observance of civil liberties. the programs that have been discussed over the last couple of days in the press are secret and the since they are classified. but they are not secret in the sense that when it comes to telephone calls, every member of congress has been briefed on this program. we are expecting all of these programs, intelligence committee is fully briefed. they have been authorized by bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006. i think at the outset it is important to understand that your duly elected representatives have been come have been consistently informed on what we are and doing.
12:01 am
let me take the two issues separately. when it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. that is not what is program is about. as indicated -- intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and directions of calls. they are not looking at people's names and content. by sifting through the so-called data, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. if these folks, if the community wants to listen to a phone call,
12:02 am
they have to go back to a federal judge just like in a criminal investigation. i want to be very clear. some of the hype we have been hearing over the last day or so, nobody is listening to the content of people's phone calls. this program by the way is fully overseen not just by congress but by the court. a court specially put together to evaluate classified programs to make sure that the executive branch is not abusing them and it isn't being carried out consistent with -- and it is being carried out consistent with the constitution and rule of law. not only does that court authorize the initial gathering of data, i want to repeat it anybody in government wanted to go further than just the top
12:03 am
line data the wanted to listen to jackie's phone call, they would have to go to a federal judge. and indicate why in fact they were doing further probes. with respect to the internet and e-mails, this does not apply to u.s. citizens and people living in the united states. and again, not only is congress fully aware of this, that what is also true is the court has to authorize it. in summary what you have got is two programs that were originally authorized by congress, have been repeatedly authorized by congress, bipartisan majorities have approved on them.
12:04 am
congress is continually briefed on how these are conducted. there they whole range of safeguards involved. federal judges are overseeing the entire program throughout. we are also setting up an audit process when i came into office to make sure that we are making absolutely certain although safeguards are being observed. now, having said all of that, you will remember when i made that speech a couple of weeks ago about the need for us to shift out of a perpetual mind war set -- warped mindset. we will have to debate how are we striking this balance between the need to keep the american people safe and our concerns about privacy.
12:05 am
because there are some trade- offs involved. i welcome this debate. i think it is healthy for our democracy. probably five or six years ago, we might not have in having this debate. it is interesting that there are some folks on the left and on the right who are now worried -- who were not very worried when there was a republican president. i think it is good that we are having this discussion. it is important for everybody to understand that there are some trade-offs involved. i came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs. my team evaluated them. we have expended some of the oversights, increased some of the safeguards. but my assessment and my team's
12:06 am
assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. and the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached or looking at content was worth us doing. some other folks may have a different assessment of that. it is important to recognize that you cannot have 100% security and also then have 100%
12:07 am
privacy and a zero inconvenience. what -- we are going to have to make some choices as a society. what i can say is while evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity. the fact that they are under very strict supervision i alternately branches of government and they do not involve -- by all free branches of government and they do not involve listening to people's phone calls and do not involve reading the e-mails of u.s. citizens or residents that is entirely consistent with what we
12:08 am
would do in a criminal investigation, i think on balance we have established a proper procedure that the american people should feel comfortable about. again, these programs are subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and debate. if there are members of congress who think differently, it should speak up. we are happy to have that debate. we will have a chance to talk further during the course of the next couple of days. thank you. thank you. >> i do not welcome leaks. there's a reason why these programs are classified. i think there is a suggestion that somehow any classified program is a "secret program" which means it is suspicious.
12:09 am
in our modern history, there's a whole range of programs that have been classified when it comes to fighting terror our goal is to stop folks from doing us harm and every step we are taking to prevent a terrorist act is on the front page of the newspaper or on television and the people who are trying to do us harm are going to be able to get around our preventive measures. that is why these things are classified. that is why we have set up congressional oversight. these are the folks you all vote for as your representatives in congress and they are being fully briefed on these programs.
12:10 am
if, in fact, there were abuses taking place, the members could raise the issues aggressively. they are in a position to do so. we also have federal judges. we put in place who are not subject to political pressure. they have lifetime tenure and they are empowered to look over our shoulders at the executive branch to make sure these programs are not being abused. we have a system in which some information is classified. we have a system of checks and balances to make sure it is not abused. and if in fact this information in of being dumped out without regard risk to the program, the people involved, in some cases on other loop -- on other risks
12:11 am
dangerous situations, it is very hard for us to be as effective in protecting the american people. that is not to suggest that you just say "trust me, we are doing the right thing." the reason that is not how it works is because we have oversight. if people cannot trust not only the effective rich and do not trust congress -- the executive branch but do not trust congress and federal judges that we are biding by the constitution, we are going to have some problems here.
12:12 am
my observation is the people who are involved in america's national security take this work very seriously. they cherish our constitution. the last thing they would be doing is taking programs like this and listening to somebody's phone calls. by the way with respect to my concerns about privacy issues, i will leave this office in the next 3.5 years and after that i will be a private citizen. i suspect -- on a list of people who might be targeted so that people might be up to read their e-mails are listen to their phone calls, i would probably be high on that list. it is not as if i do not have a personal interest in making sure my privacy is protected.
12:13 am
i know that the people who are involved in these programs operate like professionals. these things are very narrowly circumscribed. you can complain about big brother and how this is a potential -- you know, program run amok. when you look at the details and we have struck the right balance. all right. thank you very much. >> president obama and the chinese president are in california tonight at the annenberg retreat at sunny lands.
12:14 am
they held the bilateral meeting to talk about relations with china. this is about 15 minutes. >> it gives me great pleasure to welcome them back to the united states. he first met in my visit to china in 2009. i welcome him to the oval office last year when he was still vice president. some of you may know that the
12:15 am
president is no stranger to the united states. iowa remembered fondly in where he once visited with a local family. on his trip last year, he had a chance to come to california, including going to a lakers game which i was very jealous of. the president just took office in march. our decision to meet so early signifies the importance of the u.s. china relationship. it is important not only for
12:16 am
the prosperity of our two countries on the security of our two countries, but also for the asia-pacific region and the world. [translator speaking] thismportance of relationship is reflected with the somewhat unusual setting that we're hosting the president in. our thought was that we would have more opportunity for an extended and informal conversation in which we were able to share our visions for our respective countries and how we can forge a new model of countriesn between based on mutual interest and
12:17 am
respect. speaking]r i think both of us agree that candid andand constructive conversation and communication is critical and important to shaping our relationship for years to come. [translator speaking] for my part, this will give me
12:18 am
an opportunity to reiterate have the united states welcomes the continuing peaceful rise of and thata world power it is in the united states interest that china continues on we path of success because believe a peaceful and stable and prosperous china is not only good for chinese, but also good for the world and for the united states. [translator speaking] of coarse, as two of the largest economies in the world, we will have a healthy economic competition. we also have a whole range of
12:19 am
challenges on which we have to cooperate. , theirclear north korea nuclear missile programs, to issues like climate change. [translator speaking] in the international economy and border where nations are paying by the same rules, and the united states and china were together to address issues like cyber security and protection of intellectual property. speaking]r's the kin
12:20 am
in addition to the strategic concerns that we share, and the economic challenges that each of our countries face, i will continue to emphasize the importance of human rights. the president has spoken with the nation and a people that are committed to continuous self-improvement and progress and history shows that upholding universal rights are ultimately a key to success and prosperity and justice for all nations. speaking]r
12:21 am
i want to again welcome theident xi jinping to united states. we are glad he is here. ofvitably, there are areas tension between our two countries. what i have learned of the last four years is that the chinese people and the american people want a strong, cooperative relationship and there is a strong recognition on the part of both president she and myself that itd is in our interest to work together to meet the global challenges that we face and i am very much looking forward to this being a strong foundation for the new model of cooperation that we can establish for years to come. welcome, and thank you for being here. [translator speaking]
12:22 am
speaking chinese]
12:23 am
honorable president obama, it is my great pleasure to meet you. we are meeting with each other earlier than people might've expected. they thought that we might have to wait until saint hugest pirg summit to meet with each other. -- st. petersburg summit. it is my great pleasure to meet you here at the annenberg estate. this is a wonderful place, a place of sunshine and it is very close to the pacific ocean and on the underside side of the ocean is china.
12:24 am
-- other side of the ocean is china. when i visited the united states last year, the vast pacific ocean has enough space for the two large countries of china and the united states. i still believe so. and mr. president, we are meeting here today to chart the future of china-u.s. relations and draw a blueprint for this relationship and continue our cooperation across the pacific ocean.
12:25 am
this reminds us of what happened over 40 years ago, when the leaders of china and the united political courage and wisdom, realized that a handshake across the pacific ocean between china and the united states. and the more than 40 years since then, the china u.s. relationship has gone through things and made a historical progress.
12:26 am
making our two people and people out -- elsewhere in the world have reaped huge benefits. and at present, the china-u.s. relationship has reached a new historical starting point. our two countries have a vast convergence of shared interest, from promoting our respective economic well at home and ensuring the stability of the global economy, from addressing
12:27 am
international and regional issues to dealing with all kinds of global challenges. on all of these issues, our two countries need to increase exchanges and cooperation. and under the new environment, we need to take a close look at how bilateral relationship, what kind of china-u.s. relationship with both want. wet kind of cooperation can both carry out for mutual benefit and how can we join together to promote peace and development in the world?
12:28 am
these are things that not just the people in our two countries are watching closely, but the whole world is also watching very closely. both sides should proceed from the fundamental interest of our people and bear in mind human development and progress. we need to think creatively and act energetically said that working together, we can build a new model of major country relationship.
12:29 am
president obama, i look forward to having in-depth communication with you on a major strategic issues of common interest, to deepen our mutual understanding and all-around cooperation. i am confident that our meeting will achieve positive outcomes and inject fresh momentum into the china u.s. relationship. thank you. >> thank you very much, everybody. >> tonight on c-span, the internment center morning for .enator frank lautenberg then representative john dingell, the longest-serving member of congress. he talks about his 50 year career in the house of representatives. and the u.s. economic forecast from the american bankers association. today, late new jersey senator frank lautenberg was interred at
12:30 am
arlington national cemetery. the five term senator passed away early sunday morning. he was the last remaining world war ii veteran serving in the u.s. senate.
12:31 am
12:32 am
12:33 am
12:34 am
12:35 am
12:36 am
12:37 am
12:38 am
12:39 am
12:40 am
12:41 am
12:42 am
12:43 am
12:44 am
>> senator frank lautenberg passed away on monday. he served in the senate from 1982-2001 and after a brief retirement was reelected in 2003 and served until his death. the 89-year-old democrat was the first new jersey senator to be elected to five terms. , iin order to raise money filed an application with the irs in january 2011, seeking to obtain 501(c)(3) status as an educational organization. as of today, i have been waiting for 29 months without status. >> many of the agents and agencies of the federal government do not understand that they are servants of the people. they think they are our masters and they are mistaken. i am not interested in scoring political points. i want to protect and preserve the america that i grew up in. the america that people cross oceans and risked their lives to
12:45 am
become a part of. i am terrified it is slipping away. thank you. [applause] or ce purpose of ac three for tax exemption is to enable easier promotion of public good. not political work. it is the responsibility of the irs to determine which groups are choosing the correct exempt status and which are trying to manipulate the system to avoid taxes and high political organizations and campaign donors. >> this weekend on c-span, house ways and means hears from two party members on irs targeting of their groups. also this weekend on c-span two, live coverage of the chicago to ruin -- tribune lit fest. and then c-span3, the life and legacy of civil rights leader medgar evers. sunday at 5:00.
12:46 am
c-span,on representative john dingell talks about his career in public service. then, the u.s. economic forecast from the american bankers association. hitter, a discussion about the syrian civil war. michigan congressman john dingell became the longest- serving member of congress in u.s. history today, serving 20,997 days and casting more than 25,000 votes. he began his 57 year long career in the house and -- in a special election in 1955 to succeed his late father are. he spoke about his career with steve clemons, the atlantic washington editor-at-large in washington. this is just under one hour.
12:47 am
>> good morning. >> good morning. [laughter] >> we are about to have one of the most extraordinary moments that anyone could possibly have listening to john dingell. everybody in this room knows about him. i will not give you a long introduction. i will say a couple of words. for anybody who loves and is passionate about politics, loves
12:48 am
the game of politics and making policy on you cannot help but admire, respect, and indeed even love, not all the time i am sure. he has been center stage since 1955. his father was here starting in 1932. the word dingell is synonymous with getting things done in washington. it was a time when we got things done in washington. there's hardly a piece of legislation in the area of health or energy or environment or security or telecommunications and others that john dingell did not have his fingerprints on.
12:49 am
he has been center stage for a long time. just to give a quick perspective, he's the only member here in the 1950's. is that right? he is one of two members that was in the house in the 1960's. he was born before president obama was in the house. [laughter] before president obama was born. we have some perspective here. what we are doing today is steve, the editor of "the atlantic," is going to have a conversation with john. we want to welcome and give a tribute to debbie dingell. [applause] let me quote from john and i will turn it over to steve.
12:50 am
having a very tough race in 2004, one of the few tough races john ever had said, "i had the curious view that i have to be judged on what i stand for, what i have done, my ability and effectiveness -- excuse me for being in your way. "my record and my personal integrity." he also said, "i keep on going." john, thank you very much. [applause] >> i wanted to say a special hello to those watching live on c-span. we have live coverage.
12:51 am
i love the c-span guys. there are many established people in this room. a special shout out to john. i am happy to say hello to all of you. i want to highlight elizabeth who is president of atlantic life. -- live. i do not see her. she is working hard. it is such a pleasure to have you here. when i talk to your staff and your wife, we talked about various states. maybe not to doing this on friday when it is scheduled to rain. i said, no. june 7 is the day, 57 years ago he surpasses the late robert word -- byrd record. if he was here, i wonder what he would say about you surpassing him. my first question, are you ready to put another 10 years on this? -- [laughter]
12:52 am
>> i am going to stay as long as i can do a good job. i do not want to stay here when people are sorry for me and when i cannot do the job or when somebody else i think can do a better job area -- job. we talked about this earlier in january. we had a discussion. >> give our audience a quick snapshot of the legislation you have drafted and authored to remind people of what the world looked like when congress did things. john dingell wrote the endangered species act, clean air act, affordable care act, children's insurance program, food safety modernization act, it goes on and on.
12:53 am
it is an unbelievable record when you look at legislation attached to somebody's name. i worked in the senate and knew quite a number of senators in that chamber. would you look across history, would you look across history, this is like -- when you look across history, this is like ted kennedy. do you think it is possible in today's political climate to have the kind of successful passage of legislation? are we deluding ourselves? >> no. each congress is unique. it depends on the challenges and the concerns of the people are.
12:54 am
the congress has a leadership responsibility. this is perhaps the most -- it is a privilege to serve even in this congress. having said these things, we have had difficulty coming to an agreement on budget. [laughter] there is a real fault here. it is in good part that congress fault. they tolerate this. they sent us down here to fight. it is divided. you see the result in washington. you see it on the hill. you see a tremendous amount of
12:55 am
ill will that should not be here. good will and respect and integrity should be the hallmark of the congress. we should be proud that we can and do work together. proud that we are a few of the people that have had the privilege of serving in congress. we are the highest elected president of people. and senate are not directly elected. we have a unique responsibility. i have to tell people. these are the words -- as we work together.
12:56 am
we are the most fortunate of human beings. we hit the jackpot. this is a wonderful place. it is the happiest, richest. not just in terms of opportunity. we are the oldest democracy. we insist that our government works. we are diminishing our ability to survive the challenges. >> when you were elected in 1955, sam rayburn was speaker of the house. lyndon johnson was the majority leader in the senate. "the washington post" reminded us that rosa parks had just not given up her seat.
12:57 am
over that period of time, what would you say legislatively your proudest moment was? the top moment or top two or three that mattered for you and the country and that period? >> in my view, and my wife, the single most important vote i cast was on the civil rights act of 1964. for the first time we addressed the problem that each american should have full citizenship. i was focused on this because i almost lost my job over this.
12:58 am
[indiscernible] there were riots and trouble. the african american people were patient and nonviolent. that was a vote that really solved a tremendous problem. i have had others. the affordable care act was something that my dad started out with roosevelt in 1935. but of course there was a lot of environmental legislation -- a lot of other conservation.
12:59 am
i am really a lucky guy to be blessed with a superb staff. i've had the good fortune to have members of the house in my times to mentor me. people like rayburn. and of course, people like my dear friend am a john. -- dear friend, john. i have had great people teach me the trade. >> were there times -- where there times when you were disappointed in the house? what would be the memory that you found that congress did not live up to? what was the backside?
1:00 am
>> there were good and a bad and sometimes at the same time. i was always very frustrated about when people would not do i was always very frustrated about when people would not do things. or when the president -- i do not mean this president, he is doing a good job. i was troubled about the fact why icernible]which is was oh is a great practitioner of oversight. -- i was always a great repetition are of oversight. it is an important responsibility. >> who taught john dingell to send a dingell letter? members feared getting a dingell letter.
1:01 am
did someone help you craft the first one or develop it into an art? >> i have had great friends. john moss was my greatest friend. he was great on this. i had a wonderful staff. and they had promised not only social justice but things that were not right. writing letters -- [laughter] those three and four words that asked questions, who, what, when, why. you can get a lot more when you ask questions rather than starting a nasty argument.
1:02 am
some were citizens. they would receive these things and say this is something i need to take a look at. we can probably find out a lot more by asking questions. we could get more done by asking questions than trying to hit someone over the head. that was our chosen tool. we got the information that we wanted. when i became chairman of the committee, i was scared because i thought this was a big job and i thought dingell you better do
1:03 am
it right. i said how am i going to do this job? he said, john, two things. first, you got to be fair. second, you have to appear fair. so we always used our powers with restraint. that does not mean we were weak we just know how to get these things done. i have a picture of joe mccarthy on the wall. i look at that and the reason he was there, i thought he was one of the biggest scoundrels in society and he was the prime example of whatnot to do. -- of what not to do.
1:04 am
we were fair in the things we did. the staff knew and understood this. they were superb investigators. they had this wonderful sense of social outrage and a chance to correct something that is bad or make something better we were very successful and we never had a failure in investigating. >> as a representive you've been dealing with presidents since eisenhower and nixon was his vice president. you knew all these guys back and given the fact that your father held the seat, for what 23 years or sore before you, you had encounters with them. can you tell us the presidents that you appreciated and had good relationships with and the presidents that you felt did not cut it.
1:05 am
>> i had good relationships with every president. presidency is something very important. it is an office that we have to view as people love before me and wiser used to say it is an office that should be treated with great reverence. it is a huge responsibility. i got to say each president, whether i liked them or not or the same party, did some great things. nixon was the guy that tested it because of the nasty things he used to do. but if you you look at nixon's presidency he was said he was a great, bad man. it is a very interesting way to define it. i'm not winston churchill but eisenhower was a got president before him. kennedy, just an exciting administration. they didn't stay around long
1:06 am
enough to really be appreciated to reach the greatness i thought he could have gotten. johnson was saving that same awful, crazy guy from vietnam. he should be recognized as a great president. he went out to create the new deal. or to complete the new deal but he did something else. he is the guy that began the leadership and brings to the end of the terrible civil rights we had. nixon did some wonderful things and he did some bad. jimmy carter was one of the finest people but regrettably he did not have the successes that we would have liked to see him have because he was so concentrated on detail he did not have time to concentrate on
1:07 am
the bigger questions. he is probably the most underrated presidents. >> what a point of distinction. >> [unintelligible] we are equally important and this is very important. clinton was a great guy who cared about people, he worked hard and he was smart as all get out. he had em empathy. -- he had empathy. folks liked to be around him,
1:08 am
even folks who said nasty things about him because he had this warmth and he cared. the two bushes were quite fine. he's a great guy, never forgot his service in the house. i liked the first w. very much. but made just terrible mistakes. of course, our current president has been good to him. i think they have not done enough of what i would like to see him do. i've had the privilege of serving with some great presidents. gerald ford was probably the most underrated president we had.
1:09 am
that was regrettably not to be and humphrey had the same problem. they sent out to destroy him and they succeeded. >> i am pleased to report those watching on c-span can follow congress and john dingell on twitter. the longest serving congressman in history is at twitter. john_dingell. if you went to look at the twitter account, which i did this morning. you saw the vice president biden stopped by yesterday and he gave you a gift. yet, you did not say in your tweet what he gave you and i've been wondering ever since. [laughter] >> he gave me a wonderful wall clock. something that i will cherish. i'm a great admirer of joe biden. he has something of that my good friend has -- [unintelligible]
1:10 am
-- the heart of an irish poet. [laughter] >> let me go to charlie cook. am i handing out the microphones or is someone running mics around? no, i guess i am. [laughter] >> in honoring chairman dingell's longevity because that is easier to measure. but he's had a greater impact on war legislation than any member in congress in history. the story that may kids love hearing and more people can relate to, tell us about december 1941. your role. >> i had a little bit to do with
1:11 am
the history. remember on the 7, the japanese bombed pearl harbor and sank every battleship we had or damaged every battleship we had. we thought the united states could lose that war. i was a senior so i was given the responsibility of taking care of the media and he was a conservative newscaster. he was up in the gallery with an old-fashioned magnetic recorders. he was supposed to record. i was told see to it that he does not record more than the. president's speech. i thought, you know, there's enough history that is important. so i let him go on into the discussion. the country was badly divided.
1:12 am
it was badly divided over different matters but the interesting thing was when roosevelt finished his speech, which by the way, was a fabulous speech he left the podium. the house -- the senate left and the house proceeded to deal with his call for the declaration of war. the country being divided at all the america firsters and there were a lot of fellow travelers, and quite frankly, the germans. you had huge rallies in new york. everybody was trying to get on the right side of history. there was one woman who voted against world war i and world
1:13 am
war ii. she was from montana. she served one term twice. her votes on this cost her job, as you might imagine. they would not let her speak and it was interesting period that went on at this time about she would be heard. they finally let her speak on wednesday. war was not declared on the united states until that day. it was an interesting time. you can still hear some of that debate and you will hear this hiss that goes with the steel wiring recordings. an unpoint thing but i was sitting up there and looking down. roosevelt was interesting. he didn't want to know that he was crippled by polio. so he actually walked -- he had
1:14 am
the floor to himself and he was supported by -- we had 10 pounds of iron. he would come on the arm of one of his sons, franklin or jimmy or a couple of secret service guys. he would actually walk in the door there by where the podium is and in front of the reading clerk and stand in front of the vice president and give his speech. it was a terrible, terrible stress to him. the people who walked in with him always said he had the most powerful grip they have ever seen. there's a lot of interesting
1:15 am
stories we can tell about how he responded to this and how he did his job and how he -- [unintelligible] everyone knew how he was crippled by polio but they didn't know it because he didn't report it. he always let everyone knew he was in charge. >> interesting. >> i'm jeff trammell and mr. chairman, i have the privilege of working with two close friends of yours. >> i love them both. >> as i was sitting here thinking about your many great contributions to congress. i thought about the epic fight over the clean air act in the 1970's and the film that was made about that. hr 261 act of congress. for those who haven't seen it i recommend it.
1:16 am
but it explains the art of governance and i thought you might take a moment to help us understand -- think of today when we're not governing very well. the process, as you touched on, a compromise and how legislation should come together despite competing interest in the house. >> very wise observation and question. congress is a human body. there was an observation like sausage or government -- when we finished the clean air they handled it and we passed the bill in 13 hours on the floor. they said mr. dingell what a wonderful thing you did, you did it in 13 hours.
1:17 am
it passed 420-10 or close to that. that was a rough number. they said you did it in 13 hours. i said yeah, it only took me 13 years to do it. [laughter] what was interesting was you saw the theorists of government and those who understand the fundamentals of government but they don't understand that the events of human activities that make laws come to be. they tell us 6161 is actually a story of psychology and relevant thinking and attitudes and the
1:18 am
way people interact with friends. le it shows actually how outside forces come into play. it is interesting. it shows government working as it should. it shows that the process of government can be and is an honorable thing. the compromise is an honorable and con sill dation and consideration, yet, they are honorable activities that should be cherished and not criticized. when we send someone down to washington, people don't seem to understand this, we talk a how they are going down there to
1:19 am
work together to solve the great national problems that we confront. if the message or lesson that you take from that voting, i urge you to think about how it is that compromise and working together is important. lyndon johnson understood this. they were able to work together and accomplish the public needs. i think that is one thing that is lost. >> how much interest do you find in your colleagues in the house today in trying to reachieve that common spirit even your political foes? i've been reading about how you have remained close friends with some of the people you were fighting battles with.
1:20 am
do you find those members coming in seeking out to learn about that time? >> every force in our society fights the way congress should work. somewhere around 3:00, 4:00 in the afternoon on monday or tuesday, the first act is to tell the staff of what is the first plane i can get out of here on thursday or friday? so we give the folks a three-day work week. they say we don't see you at home but i'm supposed to be working down there on the nation's business. one of for important things is we ought to be friends. we don't have the time to achieve that friendship. we don't have the time to begin
1:21 am
to work together. short terms, of course, work against that. the fact that we're always expecting to be home, not down here working on the nation's business. this plus the media, which encourages the forecastest kind of behavior -- nastest behavior. that is destructive as hell. it really is counter protective. we're just -- the guys who hit this town and before they know where the restrooms are they are meeting to get some kind of big
1:22 am
thing where they denounce the president or raise hell about this or the other thing. the result is this is most counter productive in having this system work. i think i talk too much about the wrong questions but i feel strongly about these matters. >> yesterday, senator mccain gave a speech and he kept saying the president this and the president that. he said that he had small disdain about the chief of staff -- the joint chiefs of staff. what i said back to him was from the people i know and the people in the diplomatic around me, they look and say you guys have
1:23 am
a great country but you can't work together. how are you going to get anything done if sequester doesn't get over? >> you're asking about the sequester. ok great. >> we put the sequester in because we thought it was so difficult and the result would be that we wouldn't let it happen. some guy figured out right or wrongly this was going to cut the budget. we wouldn't know what the consequences were. the thing about sequester is we need to stop a problem that we created for us because it slows us down from getting home by getting the air traffic controllers not being able to move aircrafts action quickly. this is an example of failure.
1:24 am
we can't put together a budget. i've got something to say, everyone is going to say this is partisan, it may be or may not be. i have enormous respect for speaker boehner but potentially he is a good speaker, he can't get his republicans to follow him. the problem in the house is there is a huge battle between the republicans and they don't have time to fight against the democrats. [laughter] so they come back and tell them what he has done and his freshman and sophomores smack him on the side of the head and say no way. then it goes out the window then we have to have some process where the senate minority leader works to solve the budget problem last year. that is not the way we should have done it. so the intention, the mechanics,
1:25 am
the wisdom of the founding fathers, those are gone. we're not using them. when i was a chairman, i got in trouble by my own party. i became a good friend of the senior republican with whom i work with, if i was doing investigations or handling legislation. neither he nor she or i would ever reveal this because if we did we would be whacked on the side of the head. but it worked. they used to be embarrassed because everyone thought his first name was dingell. [laughter] i was proud of it and so was he. it was questioning him. he was a great friend of mine.
1:26 am
i was sit in the meetings and i said make this motion and he said why should i do that i said don't be a smart ass, just do it. [laughter] we would wind up with the legislation completed and we were able to work together to see to it that we started in the middle and we worked out. the end result was good legislation, clean air, clean water. when he got to be the senior republican on an environmental sub committee, i said this is awful. he said no, this is not awful it is good. if i can sell him on this and he was a fair and deseptember guy,
1:27 am
you remember -- decent guy, you remember. it turned out that way. so, by the way, there is a funny story about him. he had the heart of an irish man. i have the highest regard for all the members and he popped up and he said does that include the gentleman from iowa? and he said, of course. i have the highest regard for all members and the gentleman of iowa i have the minimum. it should be you.
1:28 am
[laughter] it should have a kindness to it. that is there because the people tolerate it and unfortunately, we're a divided nation right now and unfortunately, that division goes and drives the ill will, which we find so corrosive. >> can you talk about the inside republican caucus? can you give us a quick snapshot how the democratic caucus. i remember the blue dogs and the rival with nancy pelosi, you had your battle with henry waxman. how is the camaraderie in the democratic caucus? >> it's there. the great uniting force in the democratic party is now caucus
1:29 am
through the republican caucus. right now we're opposing what they are doing and trying to have a meaningful impact on things and to protect the great fundamental legislation means so much to us. social security, medicare, means so much. the affordable care act, the environmental law acts, the clean water act and other things and to make progress on things like global warming and the other concerns we have. that is holding us together. after the election we have about a half dozen left and that is a
1:30 am
great shame. i tell my colleagues, they are the majority makers of this party but you cherish them and protect them. if you're going to run this place and you want to have a democratic speaker on the first day of congress, you protect him. without him, you're not going to do it. i keep telling my colleagues that and some of them follow it, some of them don't. one of the big problems in this society is we're too much focused on the events of today or tomorrow. we aren't looking at a year, two years, or six months ahead. that is the real concern of the
1:31 am
future. that is one of the reason why the asian nations are cleaning our clock. they are thinking in terms of scores or hundreds of years out. i was in china one-time. >> first of all, congratulations, mr. chairman. secondly, very glad you mentioned superfund it is a legacy of yours. superfund is an incredible legacy of yours and i had the privilege to work with francis of that. >> francis is a wonderful guy. >> the fact that you took a consensus approach made it possible for you to get so much done, more than any other single individual. >> you didn't work for him, right? >> no.
1:32 am
>> i wish i hired you. [laughter] >> the other part of it is you taught so many people how to investigate. the other part, how to investigate administrations, even our own administration, as a democrat. so your legacy is just incredible. so i wanted to ask you about the current time. you've given us some great insights. tell us about the grassroots pressures on the republicans, the tea party pressures, how do you see that? how do you see that abating hopefully? and the role that that group is playing in this country as opposed to other movements if you will, nativist movements in our history?
1:33 am
>> i don't have the mic here. i appreciate bill's question. but because i'm always fair- minded, i always presume that we've got a good number of tea party patriots watching this show right now. and i want to make sure that we like them watching. and participating in these discussions. but john, how -- can you talk a bit about the time and about the grassroots currents in the g.o.p. and i assume those grassroots currents just as alive in michigan 12 as anywhere else. and i would just -- to piggyback on bill's question about the tea party, the occupy wall street movement and others that ginned up a lot of concerns on the left were born out after lot of economic anxiety and your thoughts on these current political streams. >> frustration, fear, are terrible, terrible motivators. but powerful. and they often lead to some serious and unfortunate results.
1:34 am
i don't want to say anything against the tea partiers. i strongly disagree with them. and quite frankly they have no use for me. this is an ancient fight that goes on inside the republican party and been going on since at least the time of goldwater. and that election in 1964, they gave us by the way a democratic landslide. but it was over control of the party. and they wanted to control the party. and they have a very adroit plan for perpetuating republican control of the country and the congress. and by golly, they're as smart as all get out. it's working. but having said this, they are they're afraid. they're concerned. there's a lot of honest concern.
1:35 am
the problem that you have there is the -- really don't understand how the system can and should work. this nation was founded by some of the smartest, best educated people who had read thoughts of the great philosophers at the time. these folks have not learned those lessons and the result is that they will -- they will rush forward to re-create the mistakes that we've made over centuries. there's not much new going on in politics. dumb ass mistakes are made today and dumb ass mistakes were made in an earlier time. having said these things, they tend to believe that the end justifies the means. and they also have the belief
1:36 am
that we have to move strongly and not to pay attention to the great system of which we're a part. we have the best system of government in the world. the problem is we're not making it work. and we're not permitting it to work. and we're not encouraging the people who are in government to make it work. and this is terrible. the institution of our government, the institution of our congress, are really more important than any single person or any single issue. and we don't appreciate the precious character of this government. which is designed to protect our liberties, our freedoms, and
1:37 am
also to see to it that each and every one of us is heard and has an opportunity to participate in our country. and this is -- this is a terrible thing. and i don't know whether i've answered the question. >> done a great job. former senator regal. >> if i may, i just want to make a personal observation about john. >> did he ever run against you in a primary? >> are you kidding? >> think about it? >> no one in their right mind would run against john. >> i supported jim o'hara against him. and it was one of the biggest mistakes i made. because he cleaned our clock. a great politician. a great senator and a great friend. and i learned my lesson. and i haven't made that mistake since. >> john was a great mentor to many people. and i include myself on that list. very gratefully. but i spent my first six years in the house as a republican and as a republican you sit on one side of the house chamber and as a democrat the other side.
1:38 am
from the republican side you look over and see the democrats, and the democrats look over and see the republicans. i decided to change parties. and it's an awkward thing to do. and it was an awkward thing for me to do. so one day after i had done that, i crossed the center aisle. and i started to sit after six years on the other side of the aisle. and i felt very strange. and i didn't feel particularly welcome. there were a lot of democrats at that time. had a big majority and didn't need another renegade republican necessarily coming over. but the first person to reach out to me was john dingell. and of course there wasn't anybody that was more respected at the time than john. or today. and one day he just motioned me to come over and sit beside him in the chair next to him on the house side. and i think he put his arm around me. i felt like he did. because that was the gesture he was making.
1:39 am
and it was a wonderfully kind thing. it was a leadership thing. and a mentoring step. and john spoke about mentors who were important to him. like john moss and others. and john mccormick. but he's been a mentor to an enormous number of people. i have to be one of the lucky ones who went on to be a chairman and used a lot of his methods. but i see it now even in some of the republican chairmen in the house. i think the two republican chairmen from michigan that we have in the house today follow certain number of john's practices because his leadership has been bipartisan. it's been bigger than party differences. and that's a wonderful gift to the country. and he's given it to a lot of people. and made a big difference. i think it adds up to as much in the end as his legislative accomplishments and that's saying a lot. >> we're coming right to the close. but would you like to share any thoughts on don riegle's congressional bromance? [laughter]
1:40 am
>> don riegle was a great member of the house. a very smart politician. was very concerned about the public interest. he was a great friend of mine. he was a great senator. he served our people well. and reaching out to him was not a problem. it was his presence in the congress that helped us all and the country. and i was very glad to have him join the democrats. because -- and when he was with the republicans, i always used to observe if the republicans were as bad as i thought they were, they needed a guy like riegle. [laughter] >> congressman, after 30 terms, this is a historic day that the ticker makes you the longest serving member of congress in either chamber to serve this government. and it's such an honor that you joined us here at the atlantic, our whole family of publications, national journal, the atlantic, the courts, wanted
1:41 am
to have you here today to have a real conversation. we very much appreciate all of you being here. and the viewers of c-span for joining us. but i want to just give you a round of applause. >> can i say one thing? >> absolutely. >> can i say one thing before you do? i'm a lucky guy. i had great mentors. wonderful father. got a wife, a treasure. and my dad who is one of my mentors, principal mentors and teachers, son, it's a pretty long time. and they said -- he'd say you know, son, it ain't how long. it is how well. and there are people who have served relatively briefly who have served with great
1:42 am
distinction. and so the amount of time i've put in just means i've collected a check from government. but the question is, what have i done with that time? and how well have i served the people? that's the important thing. >> well, we think we've covered that quite adequately today and i would like to commend you on the things you've actually done to serve your country so well. so thank you very much, sir. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
1:43 am
>> president obama released a statement today commemorating congressman dingell as the longest serving member of congress. he said, john has always worked tirelessly for people of his beloved michigan and working families across america and helped pass the most important laws of the last half century. house speaker john boehner also released a statement saying his devotion to his constituents and his country, the many battles he's fought and won on behalf of the american people and the sheer joy he takes in his work have made him synonymous with this institution. the first lady also suffered from epilepsy. because of that, her has been president mckinley, would sit
1:44 am
next to her at state dinners. if she had a seizure coming he would shield her face from guest with a large handkerchief in till the episode past. she traveled despite her problems in health. the life of ms. mckinley as we conclude this series. on c-span and c-span 3 and on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> next is a look at the future of the u.s. economy and housing the american bankers association. from washington, d.c. this is 20 minutes. >> all right. hello, everybody. welcome. i'm jeff sigmund, public relations for a.b.a. a.b.a.
1:45 am
is an economic advisory committee that meets twice a year to provide its consensus forecast. and meet with washington officials including the federal reserve board. the members of the e.a.c. in attendance today are scott brown, raymond james and associates, peter hooper, deutsche bank, ethan harris, bank of america, merrill lynch, christopher lowe, f.t.n. financial, nathanial carp, bbva compass, gregory miller, suntrust bank, george mokshon, huntington bank, richard moody, regents bank. karl tannenbaum, northern trust. and scott andersen, e.a.c. chair and chief economist for bank of the west. also in attendance is bob davis, a.b.a.'s executive vice president of mortgage market policy, and once a bank economist himself at harris bank. after our chairman delivers today's forecast, there will be a question and answer session. if you ask a question, we ask that you please state your name,
1:46 am
the name of your publication. so without further ado i'll hand it over to scott andersen to get things started. >> thank you. good morning, everybody. thank you all for coming this morning. well, after meeting yesterday and today, to discuss the u.s. economic outlook, it's the view of our committee that after slower growth in the second and third quarter of this year, u.s. economic growth will accelerate to 2.8% growth in the first half of 2014. the combination of a recovering housing market, resilient consumer spending, less fiscal drag, and a pickup in the global economy will be the catalysts for a faster u.s. economic growth rate. the housing market will be important part of the story. the e.a.c. committee believes the housing market has entered a sustainable
1:47 am
recovery with strong gains forecast for home construction, current forecast is 15% growth in residential construction this year and next year. and new home sales, we're expecting about 25% growth in new home sales in 2013. and in home prices. different home price metrics but our fhfa home price measure that we use, we're expecting it to grow at least 5% or 6% over the next year or two each year. so the housing market we believe has finally caught up with the broader economic recovery. and the wealth effect created from rising home values will be a much more important boost to consumer confidence and spending going forward. turning to the consumer, the consumer will also be in a more important position to support the economic recovery. we do think it will be a better support than it has been over the last couple of years. and will be a stronger support over the next two years. indeed, we think real consumer spending growth which fourth
1:48 am
quarter in 2012 was up only 1.8%, we think will rise to about a 2.5% growth rate in 2013 and 2014. this is a combination of several factors, why we see a stronger consumer. high stock prices are certainly helping. rising home values another piece of the wealth story. we're also seeing declining gas and energy prices which is helping out lower income households also boost the real incomes. so this is certainly helping out disposable income and is always -- also allowing consumers to kind of shrug off to some extent the rising taxes and the reduced federal spending. looking at the sequester effects, the committee does believe that the fiscal drag from spending cuts and tax hikes is peaking in this quarter and will be a bigger factor in the third quarter of this year.
1:49 am
but then we think that drag will diminish over time. there's some debate about what the multiplier effects of the sequester, a drag is. but i can talk a little bit more about that in the q&a. but we do think the drag from fiscal tightening will diminish over time. we're not expecting any new tightening measures over the forecast horizon. at the same time, the committee sees progress in reducing the country's budget deficit. the federal deficit is expected to fall to $600 billion. in fiscal year 2013. or $650 billion, excuse me, in 2013, falling to $600 billion in fiscal year 2014. that's down from a $1.1 trillion federal deficit in 2012. turning to the jobs, and the job market, the committee does expect a pickup in job growth. especially in the fourth quarter of 2013 and into the 2014.
1:50 am
the committee's consensus view of that job growth will accelerate into the 200,000 a month range next year. i think the rebound we saw in the may payroll jobs this morning, 175,000 jobs created, is an encouraging sign in our labor market, particularly in restaurant, sales and retail, suggest that the consumer and consumer spending is hanging in there despite the spending cuts and tax hikes. that's an encouraging sign. the impact on the unemployment rate which of course is tied to fed policy, we do see continued gradual improvement in the unemployment rate even though the unemployment rate ticked up a little bit -- actually rose up to 7.6%. we do see that unemployment rate dropping to 7.2% by the fourth quarter of this year.
1:51 am
moreover, when you look at the unemployment rate longer term, we do expect the fed's threshold of 6.5% unemployment to be reached a little bit sooner than what we thought in previous meetings at about the first quarter of 2015. turning to fed policy, i know there's a lot of interest in what this all means, the improving economy, the improving labor market for the fed and their actions. we do believe that the stronger economy and job creation by the end of the year will allow the federal reserve to reduce the pace of its asset purchases before the end of the year. i know the markets are focused on september time frame, the fomc meetings, there were some a few committee members that thought of dialing down or taper of the asset purchases could happen before or at the september meeting. but the majority thought it would be before the end of the year. and there are a few committee members that also thought it
1:52 am
wouldn't be taper or any dialing down of asset purchases until early 2014. so given that forecast for the fed, we certainly don't see any rise in fed funds rate over the forecast horizon. so the committee does forecast only a slight rise in long-term interest rates as the economy improves. as the fed begins to scale back on its asset purchases, we do see the 10-year treasury yield moving up to 2.2% by the end of the year and moving to 2.5% by mid 2014. if you look at mortgage rates, we've already moved up botch 4% on the fixed rate mortgage and think that will end the year around 4.3% on the 30-year. and we think that could be up to 4.6% by the middle of 2014. the other concern, people have had is on the inflation area environment whether we're going to see inflation or deflation or disinflation. -- inflation.
1:53 am
inflation concerns we think will remain on the back burner for the federal reserve. we do see lower inflation this year than last year. we are going to trend down on c.p.i., inflation, to 1.4% this year from 1.9% last year. even on the core rate, we're going to be well in the mid range of the fed's target zone at 1.5% on core p.c.e. so this will be a factor holding and constraining the increases we're going to see in long-term rates. as the economy improves the real rates will start to rise. but inflation declining will help keep a lid on those increases despite fed taper or dialing down. on the bank credit side, we also have more good news to report. consumer credit growth we think will accelerate this year to around 6.5% pace. business lend will go remain strong. we're expecting 9% growth this year. and we've continued to see improvement in credit quality. both for consumers and
1:54 am
businesses. delinquency rates on both business loans and consumer loans continue to decline and as the economy improves. and we think that improvement will continue this year. i don't want to paint in all rosy. obviously there's risks that remain to the forecast. we do think those risks have diminished from where they were in january. we got over the fiscal cliff issues, for example. so what are we focused on for downside risk to the forecast? we still believe that a weak global economy is a threat. continued recession in europe, not completely out of the woods on europe yet and disappointing economic data coming out of the emerging market economies including china and brazil. that's also another concern. and it will certainly impact our production side of our economy. we saw that this morning. and the job numbers, going to impact our exports and our production. and the other thing we're
1:55 am
worried about a little bit is there could be a bigger multiplier effect from the fiscal drag than what we've seen so far. there was some debate among the committee about when -- whether the sequester was really having an impact or not. and we all believe it's going to have a significant impact on growth. we think that impact has been delayed a little bit because -- partly because of employers moved to income growth in the fourth quarter expecting tax increases. and that helps smooth out consumer spending in the first quarter. but we do think those impacts are going to hit more broadly in the second and third quarters of this year. and the multiplier effects might be a little bit steeper than what we have in our baseline. the other, third real concern we had as we debated the risks of upside and downside was a premature exit from monetary accommodation from the federal reserve. now, when we say exit, we're not really talking about a scaling back of -- or tapering or dialing down of asset purchases. we think that's likely to
1:56 am
happen. and is not really a downside risk to the forecast. but more aggressive approach perhaps when the fed starts to raise rates, that's something that we think is still not in the cards in the forecast and shouldn't be undertaken because there is so many risks still out there. in the forecast. we think it could hurt the housing market. and consumer spending. so in short, i think one of the more positive economic forecasts that our group has come out with since the economic expansion started in 2009. we do see real improvement in the private sector economy. certainly clearly visible in the economic data. and i think this will lead to a more stable and sustainable expansion path for the u.s. economy by 2014. so thank you for coming. and thank you for your attention and i'll open it up for any questions there might be. >> take that mic away from your face. >> this one?
1:57 am
>> yeah. thank you. question. yeah. >> what do you make of the recent rise we've seen in mortgage rates? do you think it's just tied to the taper affairs or more a reflection of what -- how the market's doing? and do you think the fed will have to respond and do more to push it back down to where it was or let the market ride it out on its own? >> i think the market rising mortgage rates are reflecting the market response to the new taper discussion and the dialing down of asset purchases. we've seen -- it's really following the trend and the treasury market as we saw, 10- year treasury yields rising. i think there's also some concern of where the fed dials down on their asset purchases. right now, the fed is buying mortgage-backed securities and treasuries as part of their asset purchases. and there are some discussion in the last fed minutes that some members at least of the fomc thought they should focus on scaling back agency debt purchases rather than treasury debt purchases.
1:58 am
they don't feel comfortable with the interventions in the housing market. that's gotten some mortgage- backed securities investors a little nervous about that and we've seen some spreads widening out a little bit in the mortgage space. but for the most part it's a response to the change in fed tone and the expectation that we're getting closer to the date of a fed exit. >> you said that -- the expectation is they will dial down purchases before the end of the year. was there any talk or any expectation of how much they would dial down and take away, i guess? >> there were differing views on the committee. but everyone thought they would take a scaled approach. maybe $20 billion or $25 billion decline on a monthly purchase from where they are right now. as much as a quarter lower than what they're doing now is a possibility. but there's a range of views. i think that will be -- a lot of that will be driven by the data and how the data evolves over
1:59 am
time. yeah. >> greg robb from market watch. i want to follow up and you said it will be driven by the data. so there's -- a little bit of chatter this morning that 200,000 jobs per month is not a magic number. do you have a sense of what we have to see in the next couple of months? >> yeah. i think our committee's view is that there is no real magic number on jobs. i've heard a lot of the debate about maybe 200,000 jobs a month. i think there's differing views on that. so the fed will probably look at a broad range of labor market indicators and not just the monthly payroll numbers as they -- >> [inaudible] >> i think the 175,000 jobs we got this morning i think you can read into it what you want. i don't think it really changes my view at all. i think from my point of view, i think we need stronger growth.
2:00 am
i would like to see the taper pushed back. because i think there's enough uncertainties globally, fiscally, that we don't need to pile on tighter financial conditions. >> just to come back to this issue of housing and the mortgage rates. do you have any concerns that the run-up in rates could undermine the housing recovery? >> would you repeat the question? >> the question is on the housing recovery and whether the rise in mortgage rates could undermine the housing recovery. no. i think the committee's view was that the housing recovery would be sustainable. despite a slight rise or modest rise in mortgage rates. with that said, we have seen some reaction recently in some of the mortgage purchase application data from rising -- the rising rates we saw in may. mortgage rates jumped to about 70 basis points over the last month.
2:01 am
and that has led to about a 6% decline month over month in purchase applications for mortgages. so there has been some need of impact, that the spike remains to be seen whether that's going to be sustainable. i think it could slow things down a little bit. certainly the home appreciation we've seen some of these bubblish markets, as really been running ahead of income growth. and i think as rates rise, of housing affordability, will be more of an issue in some of those markets. >> is there any sort of fallout from the very sharp pullback in the refinancing? mortgage refinancing? activity? has it been helping people improve balance sheets and free up cash flow? >> that's where the real impact is going to be from rising rates and we've already seen refi applications are down like 40% from a month ago already. the pace of them. so you are seeing impacts going to affect the banking industry obviously. on the mortgage side. there is going to be some income
2:02 am
effects. because i think there has been some -- but probably less than what we've seen. i don't think people are refinancing really to take out income on their homes. i think they've been refinancing to make their housing a little more affordable. that's freeing up a little bit of income in other areas. but i don't necessarily think it's going to have as big of an impact as we saw in the bubble years. yeah. >> why do you feel the need to include the warning about the premature efforts? what motivated that? >> well, i think -- we've seen the reaction to the taper news in some of the stock and bond market reactions to it. there's a chance that it becomes more severe, especially if the fed takes aggressive action. while we're seeing positive
2:03 am
signs in the consumer, private sector, given the risks on a risk-management basis you don't need to add to that in terms of tighten financial situation at this point. we think the fed should remain fairly cautious here as they continue to improve the numbers. you come off a strong quarter in the first quarter and we've had summer slowdowns before and we're predicting one this time. there's certainly mixed signals out there in the market and that's enough, i think to keep the fed down in a cautious stance. >> two questions. you said that the sequester impact will be noted primarily in the second and third quarter that it is a little bit delayed. why do you think it has been delayed?
2:04 am
the follow-up question, the recovery taking hold in 2014, i guess that is primarily because of the sequester, fiscal related issues in 2013? >> so, yeah, i do think -- there's a couple of things going on with the delay and the impact. on the sequester, i think, it changed the budget authority but not the spending of the federal government and there's been a lot of action taken in the agencies to limit the impacts in the front end, certainly in terms of layoffs and furloughs, which would have had a bigger impact on the economy. we also think -- a big piece of the fiscal drag, we don't like to talk about the sequester alone because the drag of that is only about 1.6% of the g.d.p. there's a bigger drag from the tax hikes at the beginning of the year, at least from a percentage point.
2:05 am
the reason that is not more notable in consumer spending because the way employers pushed income forward in the fourth quarter. we had a big spike in income growth, bonuses were paid ahead of time and that helps to sustain consumer spending in the first half of the year. we're not going to have that in the second and third quarters and that will have more of an impact on the consumer. >> how does that tie into the recovery in 2014? >> we do think the total drag from what has happened in terms of tax hikes and the sequester, at least 1.6% points of g.d.p. we think the big impacts, the timing of the impacts will be in the first and second quarter and that will be about 1% drag in 2014. so there will be a little bit more growth in the economy, at least a .5% of the g.d.p.
2:06 am
>> was there conversation about the debt ceiling and there seems to be no progress on that? the last time around the markets seized up the closer we got. >> the question is on the debt ceiling. yes, there was some discussion on that, obviously, the deadline for hitting the debt ceiling has been pushed back. what we've heard from meetings in washington, it might be october or november that we might hit the debt ceiling thresholds. there wasn't a lot of concern, people thought it was more likely to be some action but we don't think that will happen before the dead line. until we change that date i don't think we'll have a better read on what that is headed. we've been through that a few times so it might not have as big of a market shock as it has
2:07 am
in the past because people get comfortable with these discussions going on here in washington. >> any more questions? we'll conclude today's event. we thank you for coming and we hope you will stay around to meet the economists. >> thank you. >> on the next washington journal we will talk about issues important to young voters. will talk. a look at the recent jobs
2:08 am
report and unemployment in america. research and policy director for the young and principles. "washington journal" live on c- span. >> in order to raise money, i filed an application with the rs to obtain status. been waitingi've for 29 months without status. >> many of the agents and agencies of the federal government do not understand that they are servants of the people. a think they are our masters and they are mistaken. i am not interested in scoring political points. i want to protect and preserve the america i grew up in. the america that people cross oceans and risk their lives to become a part of korea i am
2:09 am
terrified it is slipping away. thank you. --importance of a fight 501(c)(3) is easier promotion of public good, not political. it is the responsibility of the rs of who is -- irs. >> this weekend on c-span, house ways and means here from tea party members. saturday at 10:00 a.m.. the on c-span2, book tv, printers row lit fast. themerican history tv, life and legacy of civil rights leader medgar evers. sunday at 5:00.
2:10 am
>> a discussion on syria affairs. more than 80,000 people have died in syria since the beginning of protests since the government two years ago. the national council on relations this is about 1.5 hours. [applause] >> thank you for that kind introduction. andnt to thank the council the corporate cooperation committee for sponsoring this important event. what i would like to do because i think it is more important, i want to keep my remark brief. i'm sure there will be many questions and comments but to talk a where we are now on syria and to focus on the regional spillover, which is becoming more prominent. i offer a couple of remark how
2:11 am
we've got to where we are and then conclude with thoughts on u.s. policy in terms of where we are today in syria, the uprising, the conflict now is into its third year. it is the most brutal of the arab uprising. death toll run between 80- 120,000 people killed thus far. mostly civilians. the situation on the ground is nothing short of a human tear catastrophe -- humanitarian catastrophe and sharon is going to talk about it so i will leave that with her. what i want to focus on is the regional spillover. i think the conflict has morphed from a civil war to a broader regional conflict. i think the events over the past couple of weeks mark a real
2:12 am
inflexion point on where we are inflection point on where we are. let's start with lebanon. lebanon in some ways is the most volatile and fragile of syria's neighbors and the events over the past couple of weeks are extraordinarily significant in terms of the degree of spillover. we have now lebanon ease fighters in battle for a town in syria. we have reprisals taken against hezbollah inside lebanon by syria rebels in syria and more concerning in some ways, from those within lebanon.
2:13 am
we are seeing a melding or a melting, if you will, of the borders. the arena nah for conflict is broadening and that has serious and significant implications for lebanon's stability. in addition, if we look to syria's other border with iraq, another country with a fragile secretariat makeup. we see that may was the most violent month in years. in part as a result of dynamics within iraq but no doubt fed by the conflict in syria. in particular, by the rise of sunni, jihad feeding into iraq. so in some ways if we put all of that together, we see the potential makings of a very
2:14 am
broad swath of instability that stretches from the mediterranean to baghdad and -- we had spillover in israel and we raised the potential for a broader confrontation between israel and syria. there were battles that went on, clashes that went on in the only border crossing between syria and israel. the rebels have that crossing in their control. this is obviously concerning from an israeli security perspective. the austrians are withdrawing their forces from monitoring their that border.
2:15 am
what was once the quietest border is now becoming perhaps its most dangerous. in addition, they are deepening concerns about the potential for this transfer of strategic weapons from the assad regime to the syrian militant in lebanon. this is a concern to israel and we've seen three missile strikes this year from israel targeting such transfers. israel has laid out a clear line that they will not abide by the transfer of these weapons to hezbollah. in addition, we have, of course, continuing tension with turkey. there was double car bombing last month.
2:16 am
again, underscores the ways in which the syrian conflict is spilling over across the border to its neighbors. that bombing provoked a lot of upset, anger from the turkish population at syrian refugees in turkey. there has been shells that has gone across the border, basically, in all of the countries bordering syria. we also have finally, last but not least, jordan. jordan is bearing a significant strain with respect to refugees. an infrastructure that already is stretched to the limit. its resources are already stretched quite thin. there's growing concern that the burden of syrian refugees on jordan's system is becoming
2:17 am
unmanageable and it could be the source for instability. i think we can see, essentially around the region, a picture that is quite disturbing about how serious conflict is no longer contained within its borders. we can talk if people are interested in the question and answer about what some of the measures might be to mitigate some of that. i think we always need to be braced for conflict that is going to be endearing and will continue to have -- enduring and will continue to have consequences. let me take a step back and talk a how did we get there? how did syria go from one of the many arab uprising that started with peaceful protests then to an uprising then a civil war and
2:18 am
now bordering on a broader conflict. the pace and the velocity of events is unmatched, certainly by anything i've seen. throughout all of this, there has been three constants that i would argue are responsible for how syria got to where they are today. the first, from the beginning the syrian regime has viewed protests, although peaceful as a threat. as a result, they respond to those protests with now brutal force. i also think they have not been open to any sort of reform, nor i do believe this regime is -- at least the hard core center to
2:19 am
any negotiated exit. second condition that is pertained from the beginning, the syrian opposition has been divided. it has been in a state of disarray. arguably the political opposition in area today is in a greater sense of disarray than it has been. they have been unable to come around a vision of what a post- assad era will look like. that's been a significant, i would say failing of the opposition. in addition, we have even the current opposition as it is configured risen by personal rivalries, ideology differences,
2:20 am
those on in inside, those on the ground, and so forth. third, the international community has been essentially at a stalemate from the beginning, unable to forge a consensus on how to handle the question on syria. in particular, i think at the top of this is enduring differences between the united states and russia. also differences in the region between saudi arabia, qatar, and supporters of the opposition and iran as the ally of the regime on the other. as a result, the u.n. has been, unfortunately, essentially ineffective. certainly at the level of the security council on how to deal with syria. it is these factors that has led syria to where it is today. very briefly then i will conclude.
2:21 am
in terms of u.s. policy, it has been marked by the statement made by president obama in august of 2011 that assad must step aside. that has been and continues to be the u.s. position on syria. its policies toward syria have been largely focused on diplomatic isolation of the regime, economic sanctions, assistance to the opposition in terms of both trying to help bridge some of these gaps that i mentioned, as well as training and technical assistance to those elements of the opposition or those on the ground who are already involved in some level of government on levels beyond the regime control. the u.s. has been a huge provider of humanitarian assistance. the united states is the largest
2:22 am
provider of humanitarian assistance to syrian refugees. but as many in the room probably know, the united states is also approached syria with a great degree of caution when it comes to the question of any sort of military intervention. whether it is arming the rebels or the question of establishing a no-fly zone or targeting military strikes. all of these military options, i think my colleague will be talk about, the u.s. has opted at this point not to pursue those. i think it's in large part because of the many factors that we can talk about that certainly the degree to which the situation in syria is chaotic and becoming more so. i think some very serious questions, about whether military intervention would, in
2:23 am
fact, exacerbate the conflict on the ground. we're engaged in active discussions with the russians to try to restart the geneva process. the next time u.s. and russia to meet is june 25, no specific date has been set yet. the hope is july. but that has already been delayed as a result of the lingering differences. at this point, that approach given all the various risks and
2:24 am
difficulties and not least concerns about civilian protection, i think in my ways for syria the answer ultimately is going to have to be a diplomatic solution and i will leave it at that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm honored to be here. i've been traveling into syria for pretty much two years. most of it has been legal entry into the country because we feel that reporting on events north of the country in territory that was contested was important for us to do and that's why we took the decision to do that. i would like to talk a little bit about how the situation on the ground has evolved, how i see it. the bbc is not a policy make
2:25 am
earn i don't have my own opinions. what i can answer is questions about the reality on the ground. it strikes me that a lot of policy, a lot of decisions that are taken are not necessarily as well-informed by the true story on the ground. it is very complex picture. our first crossing into syria was july 2011. at that point the entire north of the country was controlled by the government, the government controlled all the crossings and what you saw was this protest movement that was in a state of evolution. pretty much splintered, local, based around families. what we've seen over the last earlier and a half how that has evolved.
2:26 am
we've read stories and i want to talk a what we actually see on the ground. so this time last year, the opposition started to form around larger groups. we spent time with a group and it sounds like it is possibly islamic but it wasn't. it was a secular movement. these people were mechanics and chefs. these were amateurs, armed with old rifles trying to work out how to mount a campaign. at that point already, the outside world was taking an interest, people were supplying weapon, and larger forces were coming to play. at that point, when the syrian government talked about foreign
2:27 am
terrorists being inside the country, largely speaking it wasn't true. i remember this time last year sitting with a group of rebels in the north of the country. again, civilians. most of them were sunnis but they preached the language of inclusively. that part isn't as mixed as other parts. that is more problematic. i know parts of the conflict have evolved into a struggle but i don't believe it is entirely defined by sectarian differences and it doesn't have to be that way. as the rebel commander sat there, dressed in black, had a serious beard and the rest of them joked with this guy, he was the taliban.
2:28 am
they thought this was funny but he was the exception to the rule. you didn't see people like that. you didn't see people who were committed to the cause. that has completely changed inside syria. a trip we did recently south of the city, in order to get to parts that we wanted to report on involved getting a permission slip from a court inside the city. so what the syrian government has been saying might not be true what it started off with but it has been in some ways a self-fulfilling prophecy. many of the fears have come to light. the conflict has spread.
2:29 am
the u.n. had figures of 9,000 syrians dead and in one year it is more like 90,000. it is radicalized and if there ever was a possibility of a clear initiative that possibly could bring a swift tend to the conflict, i don't see it now. it doesn't mean it is a lost cause and i don't think anyone should view it as one. it is as complex and messy as you can imagine. i remember being in iraq in 2006, that the time people were talking about the division of the country. i believe vice president biden at that point had a plan that talked about splitting iraq into three states to try to reduce the violence. lebanon, even if n its darkest hour and then after the war with
2:30 am
israel and it was wrapped by political upheaval it did not go that far. i don't think it is a done deal at the moment. so that end, i would urge an international policymakers to be involved. i think it is worthying about the armed opposition as two groupings and it is changing all the time. this is not a static situation. people talk about a stalemate. we're very impatient and media is the worst. if people don't change onen the ground in two months, then nothing is happening, nobody is winning the battle.
2:31 am
we have seen syrian governments have the upper hand in the south of the country and re-establish control south of damascus. we know there has been fighting near the israeli border, i believe they are taking ban that border in the last 24 hours. it is not a straight line. this time last year, the armed opposition essentially controlled a few villages around the north of the country. i had no real presence south of that. nothing into da mass us -- damascus. it has been supported and sustained by weapons coming in from outside the country. where are they coming from? they come from the gulf. they come from supporters in kuwait, qatar, saudi arabia, elsewhere in the islamic world.
2:32 am
turkish intelligence is very effective and they are capable of closing the border if they choose to do so. for a long period the rebels were not able to get weapons but that changed last year. the contention is they are given enough to fight and die but not enough to win. that is the reality on the ground. most of the heavy weapons they have are weapons they have seized from government bases they have managed to overrun. we saw that on our last trip, essentially firing rockets that were taken from one military base on to another syrian government base. so the armed opposition has evolved. two broad groupings, there are those that we can call
2:33 am
islamists, which ranges from the hard-line elements, those who sworn allegiance to al qaeda. there are those who are more towards the secular side i don't think there are many secularists left. they move from one group to another, which is why we should never see it as a static situation. these groups have been evolving all the time. this time last year, it was not really a force. they carried out deadly bombings and everyone feared this was al qaeda getting involved in syria. but the truth was, they had no power, they had little following, it was impossible to establish where they were. now, they are essentially a militant islamic organization.
2:34 am
they are not jihads. they have a certain vision for a hard-line islamic state inside syria but they do not see the struggle as a wide regional struggle. this is what people tell you. we also know that many of the people who follow these group, follow them because that is where the focus of attention is. they are the groups who have the money, they are able to pay fighters. most of the people who pick up weapons have not worked in syria for at least 18 months. many of them fighting has been the only way of managing to earn a living and they will probably move from group to group depending on which group is getting money, which group is getting resources. for western policymakers is something to bear in mind. so i see any evolution over the
2:35 am
last 12 months. the armed opposition control pretty much of northern syria, the northern provinces. ethnically it is muslim and sunni. that does not mean there aren't exceptions. so things have evolved but they have got on the a point where you feel the armed opposition is probably incapable of advancing much further than it actually has. it is relied on audacity, it has relied on gorilla warfare to achieve what has done. it has relied on david and goliath tactics. it is not able to deal with
2:36 am
military. if you put the two together, there is a potential potent force there. i just like to talk a humanitarian situation on the ground. on our first trip over was to visit people who were displaced, living in tents and woods right on the border. you can see the road in turkey on the other side are the bushes and the barbed wire. since then it is just spiraled out of control. everywhere you travel there are duplicated displaced families living in greenhouses, living in caves. we did one story and we were shown what was essentially an
2:37 am
old roman tomb where a family was being sheltered. this is an area that was between the armed opposition and the government. my camera man who is here went down into it and discovered five, six small boys in the dark on their own. their mother went out to get food and they were waiting for her to return and to take them out. nobody knew they were there. the humanitarian situation is a crisis. it is as bad as i've ever seen it anywhere. i think it's probably comparable to afghanistan during the civil war. people are relying on handouts, i have no doubt foreign aid is making its way in. there is no perception on the ground that the outside world has done anything at all.
2:38 am
people receive humanitarian aid, fighters get some weapons, but there is a general sense inside syria they have been abandoned by the outside world. people still to this day, ask what is the difference between a syrian and the libyan? it sounds like a bad joke, there is no answer. they don't see why the libyan's were assisted in a way they haven't been. most of them are victims of a war they didn't choose. whatever their side, whatever their ethnicity, whatever their religion, they are the ones that pay the price because when the armed opposition moves into the area then the government responds and the bombing is indiscriminate in the. you can't pinpoint attacks without advanced technology on the ground, which they don't use. therefore, that is why you have
2:39 am
so many killed from 9,000 this time last year to probably about 90,000 this year. so it is a gloomy picture. i'm happy to take your questions and thank you for listening to me. >> thank you. next. >> thank you. i should start with saying my remark do not reflect the blessings of the department of the defense or the united states government. i imagine that the professor will say something similar. i'm not speaking to -- for the defendant on defense. today, i wish to address two topics, first is the role of the unite nations and the implications of the no-fly zone. every american president prefers to take military action with
2:40 am
allies, even the invasion that is forgotten, was part of a coalition organization with states contributing resources. this urge is particular strong for democrats. the gold standard is a blessing by the united nations. since the fall of the berlin wall there has been two u.s. military actions that did not have some sort of u.n. sanction or claimed sanction. one was co-sew vow and the other with -- kosovo and the other was iraq. we know what happened with iraq. among the problems in kosovo was the role played by russia that determined to thwart what they saw a u.s. political grab.
2:41 am
as of last week's gallop poll, 68% of americans did not support military action. compounding this problem is an uncertain nation if assad were to be replaced. the leaders of the armed opposition within syria are uncertain at best and extremely shady at worst. a u.s. mandate is the minimum requirement to begin military action in syria. this will not happen as long as the chinese and the russians oppose a mandate. they feel they were hoodwinked when libya was first. the
2:42 am
experience of libya has informed and to a great extend shaped the inaction on syria. even with the new powers team in place, it would suggest unless there is a disaster occurring, i'm talking something along the massacres the u.s. will probably not take action without some sort of sanction. that's my points on the u.n. i draw that from my experience in peace keeping as secretary of defense. my second point concerns the nature of a no-fly zone. i'm not an air defense artillery man but i served in special operations forces. soldiers who work with big equipment they call people like me crunches because that's the sound we make when you run over us.
2:43 am
i'm low-tech i was a guest at a major weapons exhibition and they were showing these laser weapons and they said what are you looking for and i said i want wool socks that don't have a crease across the toe. the beauty of being an academic you can plagiarize anything as long as you acknowledge it. you can hear the panel on the u.s. institute of peace on their website and the remarks. i should also point out my colleague has written on this subject, very informative if you go the website you can link to that.
2:44 am
so let me make a few quick points. the first, a no-fly zone is a euphemism for war. it is an act of war and it will kill people and destroy things. some to feel killing and destruction will harm things we don't want to harm. a dominant narrative becomes yankee inspired death and destruction. let us discuss this issue without misconceptions. war even in an age of push- button warfare is exactly what general sherman said it was. there is considerable room in what a no-fly zone is. it is shaped by the decade long operations over northern and southern iraq but a clever staff officer could propose courses of actions which would not involve circling aircraft over damascus
2:45 am
and destruction of every missile and runway. my third point is a no-fly zone would require a base somewhere close by. these bases would probably come with a cost. turkey is the only credible base but they have issues of their own. they might insist on conditions that the u.s. will reject. our relationship with turkey is more transactional than it was in the mid 1980's. we can operate from more remote locations but this requires staging of expensive and scare military assets. particularly tankers and aircraft carriers, which are still in demand in the gulf and to deal with the next act that if ongoing freak show, which is north korea.
2:46 am
thank you. you're kind. geography matters. syria is not libya. in libya most of the targets were on a flat, lightly populated strip. syria is flying over mountains. the calculations involved in conducting aerial missions over syria are much more complicated. my fifth point and i have not heard any other commentators, is that modern practice is not to deploy a highly between area where you cannot retrieve them if his plane is shot down. forces are devoted to him and recovery. this means that any activity carries the potential for ground combat of a limited nature.
2:47 am
we should understand the implications of what is being proposed. confusethe salesman you. my final point is my most important one. my study of history and i welcome people to dispute this suggests that was ever no-fly zone is implemented will never satisfy those who seek a no-fly zone. we will hear about helicopters. as we did during the uprising in iraq after the gulf war. if the helicopters are destroyed, we would notice that most of the indiscriminate killing is being done by the --hine is conducted by fire ,ook, i do not blame insurgents they are in a struggle against a brutal assad regime. i want to have a concept.
2:48 am
only the removal will diminish intervention. otherot discussed technical matters. i will be delighted to take the question. please discount my remarks accordingly. thank you. i welcome questions. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, dr. for inviting my organization here today. the conflict in syria has resulted in one of the most, largest emerges in history. the massive scale of displacement inside the country and to put a number on it, the conservative effort is that
2:49 am
more than 4 million people are displaced internally. tens of millions are in need of humanitarian assistance. 1.5 million syrians have sought refuge in neighboring countries. just today, the united nations launched its largest uphill $5r for 5 -- appeal ever for billion for the region. for more than a year, my organization has been working with syrian lead partners to deliver vital medical aid for clinics in war zones across syria. we are working inside syria to deliver health care to those who need it. provide education to children who can no longer attend school and build safety -- safe places for traumatized syrians. in urban andfugees rural communities throughout the
2:50 am
region and reaching out to those who are suffering the most. so far we have a raised and spent nearly $50 million on aid to syria supported by among others the u.s., the uk, the european institutions and private donations. i want to focus on re-issues. what the -- community needs to do to get a inside syria. second how we can sub for refugees -- how we can support refugees some working them. and third, how we can help refugees realize their rights as protected their abilities from the conflict. first, the international community needs to increase support to those in need in syria. although the u.s. and other donors have been generous in the response to the crisis am a humanitarian needs far outweigh the strip provided. we need to significantly increase funding levels and do
2:51 am
so quickly. the american government and american people deserve enormous credit for stepping in early and unprecedented assistance is the largest donor and template a greater role as a leverage or of leveragor of assistance. equally important is that aid needs to flow through a diversity of channels. the international community should really consider to explore to reach those in the worst of conflicts across borders from neighboring countries, across conflict lines inside syria through the united nations. international community of red cross and syrian relief structures, more aided me to flow directly through syrian partners. especially those who are probably supported.
2:52 am
the institutions of government also need assistance. of need andy areas size syria continue to be food, healthcare, and fuel. -- doctorsructure have been targeted. now that summer has arrived, are fighting increase support for water and sanitation ash providing increased support for water and sanitation. the international community needs to know it is not inflated with political objection. humanitarian assistance should be provided solely for the purpose of alleviating suffering based on need. humanitarian action is about saving lives irrespective of nationality, gender, race, or political affiliation. it jeopardizes humanitarian workers, access to vulnerable
2:53 am
populations, and risk the verdict insufficient resources from reaching the most in need of help. second, the international community should support syrian refugees and communities hosting them. while formal camps continued to garner the most attention and resources, it is not where most refugees are living. more than 70% live in urban and rural communities across the middle east. if they have financial resource, they rent apartments. townley and friends, they live with them. although that is increasingly rare to to the strain on host families. ,n order to survive refugees they are sending their children to work. and exchanging sex for basic goods. across the region, tensions between refugees and host
2:54 am
communities are rising. these dynamics are clear today in lebanon. there are no refugee camps in lebanon. 100% of refugees in that country live in the communities and villages across the country. many are living in sediments that are emerging. -- settlements that are emerging. -- inllion people lebanon. that.n. refugee predicts by the end of 2013, one in five people in lebanon will be refugees from syria. the you in appealed today -- the human uphill today for the largest amount of $1.5 billion. this a clear acknowledgment of increased tensions of the lebanese government and the host community inside the country that are absorbing this
2:55 am
massive influx of people. in order to address the massive the and catastrophe, international rescue community believes we should provide assistance to vulnerable communities. need to increase the quantity and quality of services ,rovided to most refugee groups specifically refugee women and children. we need to supplement humanitarian assistance by assuring that traditional development dollars that are most effective by the refugee influx. given the destruction, it could be months or years before displaced refugees to return home. the infrastructure and services will need to be rebuilt. signing about the future of syria needs to address multiple
2:56 am
range of issues including the needs of refugees and internally displaced people. i really, it is -- finally, it is essential that order countries ordering syria keep their borders open to provide safe havens for all those in need. the u.s. government should use diplomacy to encourage countries to keep their borders open. though they might sound appealing, i have a poor record and practice -- they have a poor record and practice. a will definitely take political solution to end the civil war in syria. until then, it is imperfect that the international community scale up and promote operations in order to forestall a regional crisis. i appreciate the opportunity to join you today and i look forward to answering your questions. thank you. >> thank you.
2:57 am
the last speaker before we opened the floor for questions. and territory has been covered. i have to give the usual caveats. is are my opinions alone. they do not number present this of the u.s. government or any other institution i might be involved with. i might get myself into trouble. this could be obama's roland. -- rowanda. how many people have died? this is not slow motion. 90,000 in one year? this is far from slow motion. when i think and
2:58 am
my heart hurts when i think of syria. my head because it is so complicated. also because if you want to look at this through a strategic level, this could turn into a maelstrom, no kidding. look at israel, jordan, turkey, the kurds, saudi arabia. iran is involved. the russians are a big part of the problem that is going on here. syria has its own maelstrom. ora strategic person thinking of this idea, this gets
2:59 am
to me. this right here gets to me. the children in syria. if you not to read this report yet, read it. toughk of myself as a guy. i work with the military. i read some of the stuff and i wept. this is what is happening here. theshattering of society, shattering of economy. the shattering of infrastructure. this a very dangerous situation. the question is how do we get from here to there? $5 billion i heard for an appeal. to does $500 billion sound get this country somewhat stabilized? somewhat stabilized?
3:00 am
we have to figure out our preferred outcomes in the short- term and long-term. i do not think that it eating has become what is meeting -- thinking has started for what is needed.
3:01 am
3:02 am
3:03 am
3:04 am
3:05 am
3:06 am
3:07 am
3:08 am
3:09 am
3:10 am
3:11 am
3:12 am
3:13 am
3:14 am
3:15 am
3:16 am
3:17 am
3:18 am
3:19 am
3:20 am
3:21 am
3:22 am
3:23 am
3:24 am
3:25 am
3:26 am
3:27 am
3:28 am
3:29 am
3:30 am
3:31 am
3:32 am
3:33 am
3:34 am
3:35 am
3:36 am
3:37 am
3:38 am
3:39 am
3:40 am
3:41 am
3:42 am
3:43 am
3:44 am
3:45 am
3:46 am
3:47 am
3:48 am
3:49 am
3:50 am
3:51 am
3:52 am
3:53 am
3:54 am
3:55 am
3:56 am
3:57 am
3:58 am
3:59 am
4:00 am
4:01 am
4:02 am
4:03 am
4:04 am
4:05 am
4:06 am
4:07 am
4:08 am
4:09 am
4:10 am
4:11 am
4:12 am
4:13 am
4:14 am
4:15 am
4:16 am
4:17 am
4:18 am
4:19 am
4:20 am
4:21 am
4:22 am
4:23 am
4:24 am
4:25 am
4:26 am
4:27 am
4:28 am
4:29 am
4:30 am
4:31 am
4:32 am
4:33 am
4:34 am
4:35 am
4:36 am
4:37 am
4:38 am
4:39 am
4:40 am
4:41 am
4:42 am
4:43 am
4:44 am
4:45 am
4:46 am
4:47 am
4:48 am
4:49 am
..
4:50 am
4:51 am
4:52 am
4:53 am
4:54 am
4:55 am
4:56 am
4:57 am
4:58 am
4:59 am
5:00 am
>> the medicaid expansion would provide an opportunity for most americans to have affordable health coverage. i would say at least in the other budget proposals, there is no similar plan. people seems to be the only alternative that was put forward during the debates around the affordable care act to be an alternative put forward. it would allow insurance companies to pick and choose who gets coverage and who does not. happens tor on what people who cannot afford the high risk pool or the health coverage. in terms of medicare and there is an cost,
5:01 am
very positive story to tell about how you increase benefits, how you increase quality and lower costs at the same time. we talked about originally record never happened. it has happened for three years in a row and the trends is much has to -- faster. we are seeing at reformation in the delivery system and an opportunity in the marketplace to create competitive markets and to have people who don't have affordable employee coverage to have access to health insurance for their families. >> i think the gentlelady. >> thank you. in anticipation of your testimony here for us today, i .eached out to my constituents
5:02 am
if he had opportunity to ask the secretary of question, what would you ask? hownt to share unbelievable it was to hear from so many individuals in -- and business owners that were afraid to give the names in light of the current irs scandal. by asking the question and revealing who they are that they may receive retribution from that agency. this is in light of everything that we are hearing in the news and the majority is providing oversight right now. i am going to submit their questions to you in writing, since we have limited time. i'm for to retract their names as arrested. asked -- mynt employer has provided excellent
5:03 am
health insurance coverage for 30 years. this year, we were forced to change coverage. please tell me how penalizing companies that provide coverage has anything to do with ensuring everyone has access to affordable health care. what would you say to him? >> i have no idea why he changed plans this year. nothing has impacted his health plan this year. i would say insurance companies who are by and large in enormously profitable conditions will be paying taxes to help support a new infrastructure that brings of them potentially $30 million customers. that is a part of the funding of the affordable care act going forward. capow are we going to
5:04 am
employees? how would it affect my business when we have to do to employees, three of those are owners of the business when it comes to the exemptions? onthere are specific rules how to count full-time employees. we will be happy to answer a question if we get some specifics about who exactly -- >> i will give you all these questions in writing. thank you, i yield back. >> mr. yarborough. >> nice to see you. we talked earlier about the effect of the expansion of medicaid on different states. in my say, the governor announced he was going to accept the expansion. he did that of very rigorous to thes of the benefits
5:05 am
state budget and also the state economy. ,hey found over seven years medicaid is expected to provide billions of dollars. the governor found expansion would have a positive impact of more than $800 billion in a seven year. -- timeframe. as you move forward, i would is going to be a positive in many states. the neede question --
5:06 am
for transparency. a couple of months ago mama an incredible piece of journalism in time magazine was talking throughout the system. hhs doing anything to promote transparency? yes, sir. we have published a couple of months after the article a snapshot of inpatient hospital costs for about 30 different procedures. comparing them hospital to hospital. we found not only enormous variations but enormous enormous local variations. it has been published and available yesterday.
5:07 am
a release additional data, competition of outpatient services for similar procedures. comparing side-by-side. we had a process underway for the beginning of this administration to unlock data, to make sure that the data we're collecting actually is put in the public domain in a easy-to- read, easy to use way so that consumers can begin to ask important questions. why should a hip transplant costs three times as much on ago six blocks away and have no difference in outcome? that information is very much available. yesterday, we had the fourth annual -- third annual data- palooza. it was a meeting of entrepreneurs and a vocation vipers and others to come in and look at the the data and see what kind of mechanisms they can put together to help drive the data from policymakers and
5:08 am
it started in a room with 46 people three years ago. yesterday, there were 2000 techies from all over the country and a team from the united kingdom who was interested in learning what we're doing with data and how they can help us with patients and providers. >> thank you. if sarah lives commission will be be 11 on august 7. do you think it should be legal to deny a organ transplant based on somebody's race? do you think we should describe -- the side because the color of your skin? >> no, sir. >> should we deny in organ transpired because they are a
5:09 am
le?an or a mai >> if there is a medical rationale, yes, sir. it there is not, no postop -- no. >> why are we going to let a 10- year-old girl died because she is 10 and not 12? if sarah or 12, she would be at the top of the adult list. aansplant should be based on severity of illness and not the person's age. i know you you agree with that because you asked to review the policy. sarah's parents aren't asking for special treatment for their daughter. i am the father of four girls. they are asking for an equitable transplant system. you are the one person who has the authority to suspend the
5:10 am
current policy until we are confident that children have equal access to life-saving treatment and aren't discriminated against because of their age. we would not do it for any other reason. i am begging you, sir has 305 weeks to live. time is running out. , suspend thease rules of the wood look at this policy which we all believe is a flawed. , sir, again,st this is a incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies. >> based on her age. >> what i have been told by the transplant experts -- i don't profess to have any expertise in this area. the medical evidence and the transplant doctors who are the -- making the world and have
5:11 am
had the rule in place since 2005, making a delineation between pediatric and adult it is based on the survivability -- >> sarah's case is different. doctors have said she can survive with a adult long -- lung. why do we do so much bull crap runs place -- around this place? there are 40 people in the highest acuity list waiting for a lung in pennsylvania. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you. >> madam secretary, i am concerned that this bipartisan support on the headstart programs, the sequester
5:12 am
threatens more than 70,000 children's access to headstart. please share your thoughts on why federal investments in early learning are needed now more than ever. the second part to this question, how does the president early learning proposal affect headstart programs, including migrant and seasonal headstart families as well as our native american children? >> i think there is a lot of evidence that has been developed over decades that early childhood education that is a quality program makes a lifetime of difference in a young person. not just in school readiness and lessersuccess but in drugs, alcohol, higher graduation rates, more likelihood to get a job. it pays off over a lifetime.
5:13 am
certainly, in this very competitive global world, and we want all of our children to be able to live up to their potential, to be a prosperous nation, to have the full advantage of the opportunities that america can have in the 21st century. the presidents proposed in his budget a significant expansion of early learning opportunities aimed at lower income kids but and that all kids so that you would have more home visiting programs, which are to be enormously successful, early headstart child care, partnerships which would bring some of the parental skills and early learning from headstart into childcare settings from a rhythmic quality for 100,000 more children. universal pre-k in a partnership so that more four-
5:14 am
year-old would have access to high-quality early kindergarten. and then hopefully is successful into school, which i think would not only improve the fate of those individual children, but we look at the amount of money schools announcement on remedial work, it even at the very early age from at the dropout rates, at the lack of success of some didn't and that dismal outcome could save money, make more profits -- prosperous nations. i think the president understands this very well and has proposed one of the biggest investment we should make is in early childhood education. >> what you answered is what we hear from other countries that are leading the competition in interscholastic competition.
5:15 am
rule of early reading plus writing equals success in schools is exactly -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you. we are about six months away from implantation of the affordable health care act. several of the groups that have been very supportive of the act when it initially passed are raising red flags. for its repeal. most recently, the united union of allied workers came and asked for the repeal. several others have expressed concerns about losing their coverage. ,y question would be to you given the fact that you are involved in the negotiating and putting this back together, if you had to do all over again, would there there be anything that you would do differently?
5:16 am
if so, what? also, why do you believe some of these groups that were supported in the past are now opposed to it and are having problems? tell you, i was very 2009,ed from april of when i got sworn in until march of 2010 when the bill was passed. every day on the way, there was a decision or some discussion that could have gone one way or the other. i think overall, this is a law that has been long overdue in this country. for seven decades, republican and democratic presidents have been trying to pass some kind of governance reform. i think the president chose not to blow up the presidential -- private insurance markets -- not go to a single-payer system, which a letter to supporters would have preferred but felt this was less disruptive in a
5:17 am
way to fill the gap. i think that as we go through time, after full implementation, after we see how things are shaking out, they are likely to be fixes along the way. it is impossible right now to deal with speculation. that is what we have. this will happen on this will happen or this could happen. medicare does not look the same today as it did when my father was here and put it for it in 1965. i am sure the affordable care act in 50 years will look very different and there will be changes along the way based on real experience in the marketplace. withnk our success so far implementation of pieces of this with the cost control issues underway with what is happened and not happened to medicare is very, very positive. i just -- i am very excited about the next step in influencing this law.
5:18 am
[indiscernible] i don't know, and i will be happy -- i was not aware the union you cited is now saying they're opposed. i don't really know why. if they have a particular issue that they are hoping to get a tax credit and be part of the exchange of the same time -- i don't know why they're saying that. [indiscernible] >> the gentleman's time has expired. coloradoans still don't know how obamacare can help them. in colorado, our state arecials, advocacy groups channeling their efforts into public awareness campaigns focusing on one-on-one conversations with non-english speakers. also, the latino currency --
5:19 am
community. is a similars, he effort underway at the federal level and what actions have you as a department taken to ensure that non-english speakers in a aware and can access the new services available to them? >> that is a great question. there are multiple linkages spoken across this great, diverse country. -- languages. we're taking every seriously. we have have put together an operation where a call center .ill open later this month questions will be able to be 150 languages out of the call center. materials on our website are automatically available in both english and spanish because greenwich is the most frequently spoken other language in the
5:20 am
unsafe. everything we're doing doing will always be available in english and spanish. we are trying to be very sensitive to the diversity of lent which is and have -- i am -- get that will make it proposals back for navigators who will be on the ground, helpers and communities, many of those will come out of community to reach into some of our more vulnerable populations. we are also putting in a person assistance in the community health centers across the country. many have personnel who speak multiple languages. we are looking at all of that leverage that we have. >> thank you. we will look forward to our state coordinating to help publicize your multilingual call center and i applaud you for your efforts. i want to applaud your efforts on early childhood education.
5:21 am
i would encourage you to continue to work under your jurisdiction in school districts and states to make sure we have a coordinated approach to early childhood education. i would yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you for joining us here today. an issue is very near and dear to my heart. awant to briefly weigh in -- little girl would reach the age of 11 by august. you're the one person in this chamber in this country who has the ability to waive a rule to keep her from dying. i really encourage you to do that. -- i was somebody concept behind the state children's health insurance
5:22 am
program. i was born in pennsylvania. this one-of-a-kind program to ,rovide coverage to children the federal chip program was inght -- signed into law 2007. i vote in favor of that reauthorization. i am worried the vote i cast made them vain. in april of 2013 -- i apologize for this cough. i hope to get over it before the full implementation of the affordable care act. >> we can find you a good doctor. >> pennsylvania's governor asked that you work with the commonwealth to ensure the
5:23 am
children will not be affected by the implementation of the aca. the governor reiterated his request, writing you and expressed concern that 70,000 children will be transferred to medicaid. i ask unanimous consent. my question is pretty straightforward. are you going to work with the governor to see the kids enrolled in chip are not put into a position where they can no longer use the doctor of their choice, not dumped into medicaid and will continue to have a viable access to health providers? >> i can tell you i have had a number of conversations with governor corbett and i will continue to work with him to make sure that the children of pennsylvania are not disadvantaged by this next transition.
5:24 am
chip remains a program that i am not -- i had, i can see what all the issues are around the pennsylvania program. i will go back and look them up. >> the issue is 170,000 kids -- 70,000 are going to move without chip among which is a program that is market-based to be put into medicaid. the majority cannot find physicians, let alone pediatricians. >> the governors time has expired. >> isn't it true that the taxes so you only did -- you get deduction if you spend more than that, it is taxed like everybody else? >> that is correct. it is a cap on how much you can deduct, the level of the insurance deduction.
5:25 am
as you know, it is not to kick in until 2018, and it was an attempt to put on the horizon the need for health plans to actually deliver some lower-cost services. >> they're blaming something on the affordable care act. this could not have had any affect on that because it had not going to affect? >> that is correct. >> you mentioned the reason that 20% of the people have no insurance. isn't it true the 80% that have insurance, we are closing the doughnut hole, those with pre- existing conditions can get and keep insurance and can't switch insurances if they get the prevention. we are eliminating insurance abuses. a limit on what the insurance
5:26 am
company has to pay and we extended the cost of medicare for eight years under those benefits? >> i think you're absolutely right. you just outlined some of the market advantages for the 80%. i would say there are additional ones. they are paying for the cost of care for a lot of people who don't have coverage as their hospital bills are higher and that the bills are higher. it is estimated by some economists that it is about $1000 per family on their policies extra that they are paying for uncompensated care. >> the gentleman from south carolina raise questions about the program. can you say word about with the budget cuts sequester hasn't to your ability to properly and effectively administer the program? >> all of our programs? >> including the affordable care act into effect.
5:27 am
>> i think that we certainly have had a challenge the last couple of years in terms of resources specifically to effectively implement the affordable care act. we did not have a budget in 2013, and then we had sequester on top of that so that it is very difficult but we are doing a job to make sure the resources go and programs are built and that we are ready to government. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> what, in your opinion was the biggest reason or need for the healthcare law? >> way too many of our population have no coverage at all or coverage that was unaffordable in and out of the market. >> how many people?
5:28 am
>> it is estimated it is a sixth of our population. >> how many people were uninsured? >> i can go back to 2010 and get you the exact number. >> can you give me a guess? >> 20% of the population. >> according to the recent report, 44 million people will be uninsured next year and still 31 million people will be uninsured in 2023. the federal government is spending $2 trillion to implement this law. would you say the offices numbers are correct, that the president's signature legislation to achieve universal coverage is a success or is it
5:29 am
looking to being maybe not so much? >> what we know right now -- i think it is safer to deal in fact -- >> let's look at the numbers. >> we have 3 million young adults who are now covered. we know small business owners are staying in the marketplace differently than they were in the decade before the affordable care act when they were dropping coverage. >> i know what you're saying, but what about all the concerns of the people who have insurance that are going to lose it? these numbers aren't the ones you were talking about. these are new people and a bunch of people around the country -- 60% of americans that did not want this healthcare law that are going to lose their insurance and up-to-date taxes. what do you say to those people? >> i don't have any idea what numbers you are quoting, but i would rather deal with what is happening on the ground. i will gladly come back next
5:30 am
year -- >> 40 million people are not going to have insurance because of obamacare. >> i have no idea where those numbers come from. >> the gentleman yield back. >> as expected, there's been a lot of discussion about the affordable care act today. it is a bit of a mischaracterization because the bill attempts to increase access to health insurance. it does not necessarily increase access to health care. i would like to ask a a question about a bipartisan concern and that is the looming physician shortage. by 2020, the u.s. will be facing a 91,005 budget physician shortage and it is evenly split between specialists and primary care physicians. the administration continues to propose cutting medicare support for physician training and critical services provided by
5:31 am
teaching hospitals. it is estimated the proposal to cut ime by 10% the cost 10 main dollars annually. it would severely impact physicians. teaching hospitals receive funding to help compensate for higher costs that they your secure, more complex services that other hospitals cannot, such as trauma centers, burden-- burn units and standby capacities. can you tell me how the administration has considered this and actually increased access to quality healthcare? >> yes, sir. i know reduction in medical education is potentially difficult for a number of teaching hospitals. the cost reduction is estimated based on how much it costs to
5:32 am
actually provide the residency slots and how much is administrative cost. the administrative costs are reduced and the cost to provide the residential slots are in the president budget last year. there are a whole variety of additional workforce initiatives that have been underway since the beginning of this administration to provide more healthcare providers and more doubling the size of the national health service corps, which not only his doctors but nurses, mental health practitioners, dentists and other increasing nurse and nurse training programs, looking at moving medical slots from specialty cares to primary and geriatric care. there is a constant and continued look at workforce issues, which have nothing to do with the affordable care act had to do with our teaching population and demographics of
5:33 am
what we will need in terms of how to providers. >> i would be concerned when the association is saying there's not enough training slots and we are looking at cutting training dollars that will continue to compound the shortage. the greatest single threat to the medical field is sgr. if there is no one to take care of the seniors, it will do not much good. >> i apologize to members of the committee that did not get a chance to answer questions. we have hit the hard stop at 12:00. i would like to yield briefly to my colleague for his closing comments. >> i want to thank you for your presentation here today. i think that the list of successes and studies that are done every day, the positive impacts of the affordable care act is very exciting.
5:34 am
thank you for the tremendous work you have done. >> i thank the gentleman and i have a different view. it seems we are an awful lot of bad news coming out of the implementation of the afford will have their act and the debate will continue. i ask unanimous consent that article from the wall street journal all the obamacare bait and switch be included in the record. >> without objection, they will both be included in the record. i thank the secretary for your testimony. >> we willourned. talk about issues important to young voters. a look at the recent jobs report and an overview of
5:35 am
unemployment in america. research and policy director for the group young and principles. washington journal is live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> when you put on a uniform for a job it is a maintenance job and this is true if you are a building janitor or if you are a sanitation worker, you are subsumed by the roll to the point at which it is almost like you are just a part of the background. i will select a machine so that you're a human being wearing that uniform. the general world gets to overlook you. it just not see you. like acalled it -- it is device.cloaking it is very frustrating and also
5:36 am
an interesting privilege. when i am wearing a sanitation working uniform, i can observe people in ways that people don't realize i am observing them. onin nagle, sunday at 8 p.m. c-span's q&a. >> next, a look at the future of the housing market. the advisory chair with the american bankers association. this is 20 minutes. hello, everybody. welcome. i would like to -- i'm jeff sigmund, public relations for a.b.a. a.b.a. is an economic advisory committee that meets twice a year to provide its consensus forecast. and meet with washington officials including the federal reserve board. the members of the e.a.c. in attendance today are scott
5:37 am
brown, raymond james and associates, peter hooper, deutsche bank, ethan harris, bank of america, merrill lynch, christopher lowe, f.t.n. financial, nathanial carp, bbva compass, gregory miller, suntrust bank, george mokshon, huntington bank, richard moody, regents bank. karl tannenbaum, northern trust. and scott andersen, e.a.c. chair and chief economist for bank of the west. also in attendance is bob davis, a.b.a.'s executive vice president of mortgage market policy, and once a bank economist himself at harris bank. after our chairman delivers today's forecast, there will be a question and answer session. if you ask a question, we ask that you please state your name, the name of your publication. so without further ado i'll hand it over to scott andersen to get things started. >> thank you. good morning, everybody. thank you all for coming this morning. well, after meeting yesterday
5:38 am
and today, to discuss the u.s. economic outlook, it's the view of our committee that after slower growth in the second and third quarter of this year, u.s. economic growth will accelerate to 2.8% growth in the first half of 2014. the combination of a recovering housing market, resilient consumer spending, less fiscal drag, and a pickup in the global economy will be the catalysts for a faster u.s. economic growth rate. the housing market will be important part of the story. the e.a.c. committee believes the housing market has entered a sustainable recovery with strong gains forecast for home construction, current forecast is 15% growth in residential construction this year and next year. and new home sales, we're expecting about 25% growth in new home sales in 2013.
5:39 am
and in home prices. different home price metrics but our fhfa home price measure that we use, we're expecting it to grow at least 5% or 6% over the next year or two each year. so the housing market we believe has finally caught up with the broader economic recovery. and the wealth effect created from rising home values will be a much more important boost to consumer confidence and spending going forward. turning to the consumer, the consumer will also be in a more important position to support the economic recovery. we do think it will be a better support than it has been over the last couple of years. and will be a stronger support over the next two years. indeed, we think real consumer spending growth which fourth quarter in 2012 was up only 1.8%, we think will rise to about a 2.5% growth rate in 2013 and 2014. this is a combination of several
5:40 am
factors, why we see a stronger consumer. high stock prices are certainly helping. rising home values another piece of the wealth story. we're also seeing declining gas and energy prices which is helping out lower income households also boost the real incomes. so this is certainly helping out disposable income and is always also allowing consumers to kind of shrug off to some extent the rising taxes and the reduced federal spending. looking at the sequester effects, the committee does believe that the fiscal drag from spending cuts and tax hikes is peaking in this quarter and will be a bigger factor in the third quarter of this year. but then we think that drag will diminish over time. there's some debate about what the multiplier effects of the sequester, a drag is. but i can talk a little bit more about that in the q&a. but we do think the drag from
5:41 am
fiscal tightening will diminish over time. we're not expecting any new tightening measures over the forecast horizon. at the same time, the committee sees progress in reducing the country's budget deficit. the federal deficit is expected to fall to $600 billion. in fiscal year 2013. or $650 billion, excuse me, in 2013, falling to $600 billion in fiscal year 2014. that's down from a $1.1 trillion federal deficit in 2012. turning to the jobs, and the job market, the committee does expect a pickup in job growth. especially in the fourth quarter of 2013 and into the 2014. the committee's consensus view of that job growth will accelerate into the 200,000 a month range next year. i think the rebound we saw in the may payroll jobs this morning, 175,000 jobs created, is an encouraging sign in our
5:42 am
labor market, particularly in restaurant, sales and retail, suggest that the consumer and consumer spending is hanging in there despite the spending cuts and tax hikes. that's an encouraging sign. the impact on the unemployment rate which of course is tied to fed policy, we do see continued gradual improvement in the unemployment rate even though the unemployment rate ticked up a little bit -- actually rose up to 7.6%. we do see that unemployment rate dropping to 7.2% by the fourth quarter of this year. moreover, when you look at the unemployment rate longer term, we do expect the fed's threshold of 6.5% unemployment to be reached a little bit sooner than what we thought in previous meetings at about the first quarter of 2015. turning to fed policy, i know there's a lot of interest in what this all means, the improving economy, the improving
5:43 am
labor market for the fed and their actions. we do believe that the stronger economy and job creation by the end of the year will allow the federal reserve to reduce the pace of its asset purchases before the end of the year. i know the markets are focused on september time frame, the fomc meetings, there were some a few committee members that thought of dialing down or taper of the asset purchases could happen before or at the september meeting. but the majority thought it would be before the end of the year. and there are a few committee members that also thought it wouldn't be taper or any dialing down of asset purchases until early 2014. so given that forecast for the fed, we certainly don't see any rise in fed funds rate over the forecast horizon. so the committee does forecast only a slight rise in long-term interest rates as the economy improves.
5:44 am
as the fed begins to scale back on its asset purchases, we do see the 10-year treasury yield moving up to 2.2% by the end of the year and moving to 2.5% by mid 2014. if you look at mortgage rates, we've already moved up botch 4% on the fixed rate mortgage and think that will end the year around 4.3% on the 30-year. and we think that could be up to 4.6% by the middle of 2014. the other concern, people have had is on the inflation area environment whether we're going to see inflation or deflation or disinflation. inflation concerns we think will remain on the back burner for the federal reserve. we do see lower inflation this year than last year. we are going to trend down on c.p.i., inflation, to 1.4% this year from 1.9% last year. even on the core rate, we're going to be well in the mid range of the fed's target zone
5:45 am
at 1.5% on core p.c.e. so this will be a factor holding and constraining the increases we're going to see in long-term rates. as the economy improves the real rates will start to rise. but inflation declining will help keep a lid on those increases despite fed taper or dialing down. on the bank credit side, we also have more good news to report. consumer credit growth we think will accelerate this year to around 6.5% pace. business lend will go remain strong. we're expecting 9% growth this year. and we've continued to see improvement in credit quality. both for consumers and businesses. delinquency rates on both business loans and consumer loans continue to decline and as the economy improves. and we think that improvement will continue this year. i don't want to paint in all rosy. obviously there's risks that remain to the forecast. we do think those risks have diminished from where they were
5:46 am
in january. we got over the fiscal cliff issues, for example. so what are we focused on for downside risk to the forecast? we still believe that we -- a weak global economy is a threat. continued recession in europe, not completely out of the woods on europe yet and disappointing economic data coming out of the emerging market economies including china and brazil. that's -- and also another concern. and it will certainly impact our production side of our economy. we saw that this morning. and the job numbers, going to impact our exports and our production. and the other thing we're worried about a little bit is there could be a bigger multiplier effect from the fiscal drag than what we've seen so far. there was some debate among the committee about when -- whether the sequester was really having an impact or not. and we all believe it's going to have a significant impact on growth. we think that impact has been delayed a little bit because -- partly because of employers
5:47 am
moved to income growth in the fourth quarter expecting tax increases. and that helps smooth out consumer spending in the first quarter. but we do think those impacts are going to hit more broadly in the second and third quarters of this year. and the multiplier effects might be a little bit steeper than what we have in our baseline. the other, third real concern we had as we debated the risks of upside and downside was a premature exit from monetary accommodation from the federal reserve. now, when we say exit, we're not really talking about a scaling back of -- or tapering or dialing down of asset purchases. we think that's likely to happen. and is not really a downside risk to the forecast. but more aggressive approach perhaps when the fed starts to raise rates, that's something that we think is still not in the cards in the forecast and shouldn't be undertaken because there is so many risks still out there. in the forecast. we think it could hurt the
5:48 am
housing market. and consumer spending. so in short, this is -- i think one of the more positive economic forecasts that our group has come out with since the economic expansion started in 2009. we do see real improvement in the private sector economy. certainly clearly visible in the economic data. and i think this will lead to a more stable and sustainable expansion path for the u.s. economy by 2014. so thank you for coming. and thank you for your attention and i'll open it up for any questions that might be -- >> take that mic away from your face -- >> this one? >> yeah. thank you. question. yeah. >> what do you make of the recent rise we've seen in mortgage rates? do you think it's just tied to the taper affairs or more a reflection of what -- how the market's doing?
5:49 am
and do you think the fed will have to respond and do more to push it back down to where it was or let the market ride it out on its own? >> i think the market rising mortgage rates are reflecting the market response to the new taper discussion and the dialing down of asset purchases. we've seen -- it's really following the trend and the treasury market as we saw, 10- year treasury yields rising. i think there's also some concern of where the fed dials down on their asset purchases. right now, the fed is buying mortgage-backed securities and treasuries as part of their asset purchases. and there are some discussion in the last fed minutes that some members at least of the fomc thought they should focus on scaling back agency debt purchases rather than treasury debt purchases. they don't feel comfortable with the interventions in the housing market. that's gotten some mortgage- backed securities investors a little nervous about that and we've seen some spreads widening out a little bit in the mortgage
5:50 am
space. but for the most part it's a response to the change in fed tone and the expectation that we're getting closer to the date of a fed exit. >> you said that -- the expectation is they will dial down purchases before the end of the year. was there any talk or any expectation of how much they would dial down and take away, i guess? >> there were differing views on the committee. but everyone thought they would take a scaled approach. maybe $20 billion or $25 billion decline on a monthly purchase from where they are right now. as much as a quarter lower than what -- what they're doing now is a possibility. but there's a range of views. i think that will be -- a lot of that will be driven by the data and how the data evolves over time. yeah. >> greg robb from market watch. i want to follow up and you said it will be driven by the data. so there's -- a little bit of
5:51 am
chatter this morning that 200,000 jobs per month is not a magic number. do you have a sense of what we have to see in the next couple of months? >> yeah. i think our committee's view is that there is no real magic number on jobs. i've heard a lot of the debate about maybe 200,000 jobs a month. i think there's differing views on that. so the fed will probably look at a broad range of labor market indicators and not just the monthly payroll numbers as they i think the 175,000 jobs we got this morning i think you can read into it what you want. i don't think it really changes my view at all. i think from my point of view, i think we need stronger growth. i would like to see the taper pushed back. because i think there's enough uncertainties globally, fiscally, that we don't need to pile on tighter financial conditions.
5:52 am
yeah. >> just to come back to this issue of housing and the mortgage rates. do you have any concerns that the run-up in rates could undermine the housing recovery? >> would you repeat the question? >> the question is on the housing recovery and whether the rise in mortgage rates could undermine the housing recovery. no. i think the committee's view was that the housing recovery would be sustainable. despite a slight rise or modest rise in mortgage rates. with that said, we have seen some reaction recently in some of the mortgage purchase application data from rising -- the rising rates we saw in may. mortgage rates jumped to about 70 basis points over the last month. and that has led to about a 6% decline month over month in purchase applications for mortgages. so there has been some need of impact, that the spike remains to be seen whether that's going to be sustainable.
5:53 am
i think it could slow things down a little bit. certainly the home appreciation we've seen some of these bubblish markets, as really been running ahead of income growth. and i think as rates rise, of housing affordability, will be more of an issue in some of those markets. >> is there any sort of fallout from the very sharp pullback in the refinancing? mortgage refinancing? activity? has it been helping people improve balance sheets and free up cash flow? >> that's where the real impact is going to be from rising rates and we've already seen refi applications are down like 40% from a month ago already. the pace of them. so you are seeing impacts going to affect the banking industry obviously. on the mortgage side. there is going to be some income effects. because i think there has been some -- but probably less than what we've seen. i don't think people are refinancing really to take out income on their homes. i think they've been refinancing to make their housing a little more affordable. that's freeing up a little bit of income in other areas.
5:54 am
but i don't necessarily think it's going to have as big of an impact as we saw in the bubble years. yeah. >> why do you feel the need to include the warning about the premature efforts? what motivated that? >> well, i think -- we've seen the reaction to the taper news in some of the stock and bond market reactions to it. there's a chance that it becomes more severe, especially if the fed takes aggressive action. while we're seeing positive signs in the consumer, private sector, given the risks on a risk-management basis you don't need to add to that in terms of tighten financial situation at this point.
5:55 am
we think the fed should remain fairly cautious here as they continue to improve the numbers. you come off a strong quarter in the first quarter and we've had summer slowdowns before and we're predicting one this time. there's certainly mixed signals out there in the market and that's enough, i think to keep the fed down in a cautious stance. >> two questions. you said that the sequester impact will be noted primarily in the second and third quarter that it is a little bit delayed. why do you think it has been delayed? the follow-up question, the recovery taking hold in 2014, i guess that is primarily because of the sequester, fiscal related issues in 2013? >> so, yeah, i do think --
5:56 am
there's a couple of things going on with the delay and the impact. on the sequester, i think, it changed the budget authority but not the spending of the federal government and there's been a lot of action taken in the agencies to limit the impacts in the front end, certainly in terms of layoffs and furloughs, which would have had a bigger impact on the economy. we also think -- a big piece of the fiscal drag, we don't like to talk about the sequester alone because the drag of that is only about 1.6% of the g.d.p. there's a bigger drag from the tax hikes at the beginning of the year, at least from a percentage point. the reason that is not more notable in consumer spending because the way employers pushed income forward in the fourth quarter. we had a big spike in income growth, bonuses were paid ahead
5:57 am
of time and that helps to sustain consumer spending in the first half of the year. we're not going to have that in the second and third quarters and that will have more of an impact on the consumer. >> how does that tie into the recovery in 2014? >> we do think the total drag from what has happened in terms of tax hikes and the sequester, at least 1.6% points of g.d.p. we think the big impacts, the timing of the impacts will be in the first and second quarter and that will be about 1% drag in 2014. so there will be a little bit more growth in the economy, at least a .5% of the g.d.p. >> was there conversation about the debt ceiling and there seems to be no progress on that?
5:58 am
the last time around the markets seized up the closer we got. >> the question is on the debt ceiling. yes, there was some discussion on that, obviously, the deadline for hitting the debt ceiling has been pushed back. what we've heard from meetings in washington, it might be october or november that we might hit the debt ceiling thresholds. there wasn't a lot of concern, people thought it was more likely to be some action but we don't think that will happen before the dead line. until we change that date i don't think we'll have a better read on what that is headed. we've been through that a few times so it might not have as big of a market shock as it has in the past because people get comfortable with these discussions going on here in washington.
5:59 am
>> any more questions? we'll conclude today's event. we thank you for coming and we hope you will stay around to meet the economists. >> thank you. >> on the next washington journal, we will suck but issues important to young voters. the political affairs director for the college democrats of america. then, a look at the recent jobs report and an overview of unemployment in america. research and policy director for the group young invincible. washington journal is live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span.
6:00 am

66 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on